MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2967729668 · doi:10.5546/aap.2017.eng.505

Management of cirrhotic ascites in children. Review and recommendations. Part 2: Electrolyte disturbances, nonelectrolyte disturbances, therapeutic options

2017· review· en· W2967729668 on OpenAlexaff
David Bes, María C. Martín Fernández, Ivone Malla, Horacio A. Repetto, Daniel Buamscha, Susana López, Roxana Martinitto, Miriam Cuarterolo, Fernando Álvarez

Bibliographic record

VenueArchivos Argentinos de Pediatria · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAscitesParacentesisSpontaneous bacterial peritonitisCirrhosisHyponatremiaHepatorenal syndromeIntensive care medicineGynecologyGastroenterologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ascites is a major complication of cirrhosis. There are several evidence-based articles and guidelines for the management of adults, but few data have been published in relation to children. In the case of a pediatric patient with cirrhotic ascites (PPCA), the following questions are raised: How are the clinical assessment and ancillary tests performed? When is ascites considered refractory? How is it treated? Should fresh plasma and platelets be infused before abdominal paracentesis to prevent bleeding? What are the hospitalization criteria? What are the indicated treatments? What complications can patients develop? When and how should hyponatremia be treated? What are the diagnostic criteria for spontaneous bacterial peritonitis? How is it treated? What is hepatorenal syndrome? How is it treated? When should albumin be infused? When should fluid intake be restricted? The recommendations made here are based on pathophysiology and suggest the preferred approach to diagnostic and therapeutic aspects, and preventive care.

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 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)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.784
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.307 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations6
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueArchivos Argentinos de PediatriaSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207