Significant lung injury and its prognostic significance in acute liver failure: A cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Respiratory failure complicating acute liver failure (ALF) may preclude liver transplantation (LT). We evaluated the association between significant lung injury (SLI) and important clinical outcomes. METHODS: < 200 mm Hg) and abnormalities on CXR. Primary outcomes were 21-day transplant-free survival (TFS) and overall survival. RESULTS: Of 947 ALF patients, 370 (39%) had evidence of SLI. ALF patients with SLI (ALF-SLI) had significantly worse oxygenation than controls on admission (median PF ratio 120 vs 300 mm Hg, P < .0001) and higher lactate (6.1 vs 4.6 mmol/l, P = .0008). ALF-SLI patients had higher rates of tracheal (19% vs 14%) and bloodstream (17% vs 11%, P < .005 for both) infections and were more likely to receive transfusions (red cells 55% vs 43%; FFP 74% vs 66%; P < .009 for both). ALF-SLI patients were less likely to receive LT (18% vs 25%, P = .02) and had significantly decreased 21-day TFS (34% vs 42%) and overall survival (49% vs 64%, P < .007 for both). After adjusting for significant covariates (INR, bilirubin, acetaminophen aetiology), the development of SLI was independently associated with decreased 21-day TFS (OR 0.71, P = .03) in ALF patients (C-index 0.78). The incorporation of SLI improved discriminatory ability of the King's College Criteria (P = .0061) but not the ALFSG prognostic index (P = .34). CONCLUSION: Significant lung injury is a common complication in ALF patients that adversely affects patient outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".