Missed Diagnosis of Liver Cirrhosis Leads to Disparities in Care for Older Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cirrhosis of the liver is often not recognized until late in the disease state, when patients decompensate or develop hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). This inquiry considered factors associated with undiagnosed cirrhosis. METHODS: Patients with undiagnosed cirrhosis were compared to patients with known diagnosis of cirrhosis, to evaluate the differences between these two groups. The study population is patients with confirmed diagnosis of HCC, stratified into patients with known diagnosis of cirrhosis (n = 36) and patients without the known diagnosis of cirrhosis who have features of cirrhosis (n = 36). RESULTS: There was no significant difference in insurance, gender, race, etiology of liver disease, presence of splenomegaly, model for end stage liver disease (MELD) score, fibrosis-4 index (FIB-4) or aspartate aminotransferase (AST) to platelet ratio index (APRI) scores between groups. However, the strongest predictor of the diagnosis of cirrhosis was age, with older patients being less likely to be diagnosed with cirrhosis (OR: 0.924, P = 0.012). Furthermore, tumor size in patients without known cirrhosis was larger than those diagnosed with cirrhosis (median: 4.9 cm versus 3.5 cm, P = 0.015). Of note, 50% of cases with cirrhosis were undiagnosed. CONCLUSION: Older age was the most significant predictor of the missed diagnosis of liver cirrhosis. This led to a larger tumor size at diagnosis, which may imply worse prognosis in these patients. Further evaluation of health disparities related to older age and outcomes of older patients with liver cirrhosis should guide the development of guidelines to prevent the missed diagnosis of cirrhosis.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".