MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2908641968 · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1676805

Child–Pugh Classification: Time to Abandon?

2019· review· en· W2908641968 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueSeminars in Liver Disease · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shuntCirrhosisHepatocellular carcinomaMedicineContext (archaeology)Intensive care medicinePortal hypertensionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The Child-Pugh classification is one of the commonest and oldest bedside tools utilized in estimating prognosis in patients with cirrhosis. However, its usage as a risk prediction tool or indeed a decision-making tool should be revisited. In this review, we discuss some inherent issues with the Child-Pugh classification and present a few contexts in which the current usage of Child-Pugh warrants reassessment, elaborating on its utility in acute variceal bleeding, specifically its role in decision-making on early transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt, as well as its use in the context of hepatocellular carcinoma and drug development and dose adjustment.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.914
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.012

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.322
Teacher spread0.283 · 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