MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2794385761 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwy009.058

A58 POPULATION CHARACTERISTICS AND OUTCOMES OF CARE IN PATIENTS WITH DECOMPENSATED CIRRHOSIS ADMITTED TO MEDICAL SERVICES AT THE OTTAWA HOSPITAL

2018· article· en· W2794385761 on OpenAlexaffabout
Dominique Yelle, Ian Carrigan, Krista Wooller, Erin Kelly

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSpontaneous bacterial peritonitisAscitesCirrhosisDecompensationHepatorenal syndromeHepatic encephalopathyInternal medicinePopulationCohortHazard ratioPediatricsGastroenterologyEmergency medicineConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Patients with decompensated cirrhosis have increased healthcare needs and consequentially greater healthcare utilization. Whether specific types of decompensating events including ascites, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP), hepatic encephalopathy (HE), variceal bleeding (VB), and hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) are associated with greater risk of hospital readmission is unclear. We aim to describe an inpatient cohort admitted with decompensated cirrhosis at a single tertiary care center and evaluate important clinical endpoints including length of stay (LOS), inpatient mortality and 30-day readmission rates (R-30) by presence and type of liver decompensation events. Patients with decompensated cirrhosis admitted to a medical service at TOH between July 2014–2016 were identified using ICD codes. Cirrhosis and decompensating events were confirmed by chart review. Of the 302 patient admissions reviewed to date, 190 were first presentation to TOH with decompensated cirrhosis. Among those, 40.5% consumed alcohol in the prior week, and 62.6% of patients had one or more pre-existing complications of cirrhosis (ascites 53.7%, HE 25.8%, SBP 6.8%, VB 12.6%, HRS 1.1%). The average MELD-Na on admission was 19.2 (SD 6.8) for all unique patients. Admissions were complicated by ascites in 70.5%, HE in 25.5%, VB in 20.5%, SBP in 9.5%, and HRS in 5.8%. Patients with ascites, HE and HRS had significantly longer LOS compared to those without: ascites median LOS 6.9 days (IQR 4.0–17.5, p = 0.025), HE 8.7 (4.5–22.0, p = 0.046), HRS 20.7 (11.7–26.9, p = 0.0022). VB trended towards prolonging LOS but not significantly (median 5.29, IQR 3.28–6.89, p=0.051). SBP did not significantly impact LOS (median 12.1, IQR 4.9–24.0, p = 0.13). R-30 was significantly greater in those with HE (37.5%, p=0.008) compared to those without, while other in-hospital decompensating events did not significantly impact R-30 (ascites 23.9%, p=0.72; SBP 27.8%, p=0.63; HRS 9.1%, p=0.26; VB 18.0%, p=0.65). Pre-existing HE was also a significant predictor of R-30 (34.7%, p=0.026). Overall inpatient mortality rate was 19.0%. Inpatient mortality was greatest in those with an in-hospital diagnosis of HRS (72.7%, p<0.0001), followed by SBP (55.6%, p<0.0001) and ascites (19.0%, p=0.002). Mortality rates were not significantly different in patients with HE and VB compared to those without (18.8%, p=0.89; and 20.5%, p=0.94, respectively). In our cohort, patients admitted with decompensated cirrhosis have high in-hospital mortality, prolonged LOS and increased risk of 30-day readmission. Decompensating events, notably HE, negatively impact hospital outcomes such as LOS and R-30, while HRS, SBP and ascites are associated with increased mortality. Future work will target strategies to improve the care for these patients. None

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.555
Threshold uncertainty score0.895

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.211 · 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

Citations0
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→