Refractory Ascites in Liver Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ascites, a common complication of liver cirrhosis, eventually becomes refractory to diuretic therapy and sodium restriction in ∼10% of patients. Multiple pathogenetic factors are involved in the development of refractory ascites, which ultimately lead to renal hypoperfusion and avid sodium retention. Therefore, renal dysfunction commonly accompanies refractory ascites. Management includes continuation of sodium restriction, which needs frequent reviews for adherence; and regular large volume paracentesis of 5 L or more with albumin infusions to prevent the development of paracentesis-induced circulatory dysfunction. In the appropriate patients with reasonable liver reserve, the insertion of a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic stent shunt (TIPS) can be considered, especially if the patient is relatively young and has no previous hepatic encephalopathy or anatomical contraindications, and no past history of renal or cardiopulmonary disease. Response to TIPS with ascites clearance can lead to nutritional improvement. Devices such as an automated low-flow ascites pump may be available in the future for ascites treatment. Patients with refractory ascites and poor liver function and/or renal dysfunction, should be referred for liver transplant, as this will eliminate the portal hypertension and liver dysfunction. Renal dysfunction prior to liver transplant largely improves after transplant without affecting post-transplant survival.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".