The Value of Quick Sepsis-Related Organ Failure Assessment Scores in Patients With Acute Pancreatitis Who Present to Emergency Departments: A Three-Year Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Distinguishing sepsis from other inflammatory syndromes continues to be a clinical challenge. The goal of risk stratification tools is to differentiate sepsis from other conditions. We compare the ability of quick sepsis-related organ failure assessment (qSOFA) and systemic inflammatory responses syndrome (SIRS) scores to predict prolonged length of stay (LOS) among patients who presented to the emergency department and hospital ward with acute pancreatitis (AP). METHODS: -tests, Pearson's correlation and multiple regressions were performed with hospital LOS as the dependent variable, versus demographic characteristics and etiology of the pancreatitis as independent variables. Prolonged LOS was defined as > 5 days. RESULTS: The sensitivity and specificity of an SIRS score of 2 or greater for the detection of patients with prolonged LOS were 61% and 80%, respectively. The qSOFA score of 2 or greater corresponded to a diagnosis of significant AP with a specificity of 99% and a sensitivity of 4%. Multiple regression analysis demonstrated that each point increase in an SIRS score is associated with 2.24 days in additional hospital LOS. Interestingly, SIRS scores were found to correlate with the LOS, but not qSOFA. CONCLUSION: The qSOFA is a tool designed to identify patients at high risk of mortality due to sepsis. The data suggest that as with sepsis, patients with AP who are triaged with only qSOFA could be underrecognized and subsequently undertreated. Secondarily, the data suggest that SIRS scoring has the potential to promptly predict how long patients with AP will stay in the hospital.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".