MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2793372644 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy008.023

A22 LIVER TYPE FATTY ACID BINDING PROTEIN (FABP1) LEVELS IMPROVE PERFORMANCE OF PROGNOSTIC MODELS IN ACETAMINOPHEN INDUCED ACUTE LIVER FAILURE

2018· article· en· W2793372644 on OpenAlexaffabout
Constantine Karvellas, Jaime L. Speiser, Mélanie Tremblay, W Lee, Christopher F. Rose

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcetaminophenLiver failureFatty acid-binding proteinFatty liverInternal medicineMedicineChemistryEndocrinologyPharmacologyBiochemistryGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acetaminophen (APAP) - induced acute liver failure (ALF) is associated with significant mortality. To date, traditional prognostic scores (King’s College Criteria ~ KCC; Acute Liver Failure Study Group (ALFSG) prognostic index) lack discrimination in identifying patients with APAP-ALF who will die without liver transplant (LT), and those who will survive with medical management alone. Liver-type fatty acid binding protein (FABP1) is a 15 kDa cytoplasmic protein abundantly expressed in hepatocytes with potential prognostic value in APAP-ALF patients. Our aims were to a) Determine if elevated serum levels of FABP1 in APAP-ALF are significantly associated with 21-day mortality after adjusting for other significant covariates. b) Determine if the addition of FABP1 improves the performance of previously described prognostic models in APAP-ALF (KCC, ALFSG prognostic index). With serial serum samples (early; day 1 or late; day 3–5) from 198 APAP-ALF patients (99 survivors, 99 non-survivors), FABP1 was measured using solid-phase enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. No patients in this analysis received LT. With clinical data from the prospectively collected ALFSG registry, model performance (early and late) for KCC, ALFSG index, FABP1, FABP1+KCC, and FABP1+ALFSG index were assessed using AUROC statistics. Comparisons of AUROC statistics between models (e.g. KCC vs. FABP1 + KCC) were made using the Delong method. APAP-ALF survivors had significantly lower serum FABP1 levels early (238.6 vs. 690.8 ng/ml, p <0.0001) and late (148.4 vs. 612.3 ng/ml, p <0.0001) compared with non-survivors (Figure 1). FABP1 > 350 ng/ml was associated with significantly higher risk of death at early (p=0.0004) and late (p<0.0001) time points. Increased serum FABP1 early (log FABP1 odds ratio (OR) 1.31, p=0.027) and late (log FABP1 OR 1.50, p =0.005) were associated with significantly increased 21-day mortality after adjusting for significant covariates (MELD, vasopressor use). Areas under the receiver-operating curve (AUROC) for early and late multivariable models were 0.778 and 0.907 respectively. AUROC of the King’s College Criteria (KCC) (Early: 0.552 alone, 0.711 with FABP1; Late: 0.604 alone, 0.797 with FABP1) and ALFSG prognostic index (Early: 0.686 alone, 0.766 with FABP1; Late: 0.711 alone, 0.815 with FABP1) significantly improved with the addition of FABP1 (p <0.002 for all, Delong). In patients with APAP-ALF, FABP1 showed good potential to discriminate survivors from non-survivors at multiple time-points and significantly improved models currently used in clinical practice. Validation of FABP1 as a clinical prediction tool in APAP-ALF merits further investigation. Figure 1: Serum levels of FABP1 (ng/ml) in healthy controls, non-survivors (early ~ admission), survivors (early), non-survivors (late ~ day 3–5), survivors (late). The study was sponsored by NIH grant U-01 58369 (from NIDDK) and a grant from the University of Alberta Hospital Foundation (UHF).

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.234
Teacher spread0.214 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→