MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2979058919 · doi:10.2196/15130

A Smartphone App Is Feasible for Outpatient Cirrhotic Ascites Management

2019· article· en· W2979058919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Patricia P. Bloom, Madeline Marx, Thomas J. Wang, Ashwini Arvind, Jasmine Ha, Bradley Green, James M. Richter

Bibliographic record

VenueIproceedings · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAscitesMedicineCirrhosisParacentesisInternal medicineEmergency medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Ascites, or accumulation of abdominal free fluid, develops in two-thirds of patients with cirrhosis. Ascites is painful and, if inadequately managed, can lead to life-threatening complications, including spontaneous bacterial peritonitis and kidney failure. Body weight is an effective proxy for ascites volume; therefore, monitoring daily weights is recommended for optimal ascites management. At present, patients with ascites rarely proactively alert providers of significant weight gains, and there are no widely available technologies specifically designed for ascites monitoring. Objective The objective of this pilot study is to assess the feasibility of a smartphone app to manage outpatient ascites. Methods In this feasibility study, cirrhotic patients with significant ascites requiring specialist management are identified through an inpatient hepatology consult census and outpatient referrals. Each candidate is sent home with a Bluetooth-connected scale, which transmits weight data to the PGHD Connect Smartphone App, and then via the cloud into the electronic medical record (EMR). Weights are monitored every weekday by study staff and alerts are sent to providers if their patients’ weight changes by ≥5lbs within a week or from the weight documented at discharge. The primary outcomes are percentage of study enrollment days when weight data was successfully transmitted into the EMR and percentage of weight alerts to which providers responded. Results Seventy-eight cirrhotic patients were identified as requiring active management of ascites. Of these patients, 8 did not own a smartphone, 23 were encephalopathic, and thus were excluded; another 1 declined to participate, and 3 were consented but subsequently withdrawn due to physical limitation or death prior to hospital discharge. Each patient is enrolled in the program for 28 days. Of the 16 patients currently enrolled, 5 (31%) are male, mean age is 60.9 years (SD 11.1), 13 (81%) were enrolled as inpatients, 8 (50%) have non-alcoholic steatohepatitis cirrhosis, 4 (25%) alcohol-associated cirrhosis, and 2 (12.5%) viral cirrhosis. At this interim analysis, transmission of weight data into the EMR has successfully occurred on 70% of study enrollment days. Patients experienced technology issues during 10% of days enrolled. Of the total 20 weight alerts to date, 12 (60%) were triggered by weight loss ≥5lb in one week, 7 (35%) by weight gain ≥5lb in one week, and 1 (5%) by weight gain ≥5lb since discharge. Providers responded to 13 (65%) of the weight alerts within 24 hours. Of the 13 alerts with a provider response, 7 (54%) were followed by a call or email to the patient to discuss care, 4 (31%) a scheduled appointment, 4 (31%) a change in diuretic dosage, 3 (23%) scheduling for paracentesis (procedure to remove ascites fluid), and 3 (23%) further laboratory workup. To date, there have been 13 readmissions. Conclusions On the basis of our interim analysis, we demonstrate feasibility of a martphone app to facilitate ascites management. We report encouraging rates of patient and provider engagement. This innovation shows promise in enabling early intervention and enhancing quality of life in cirrhotic patients. Future studies will investigate the efficacy of mobile health technology to improve outcomes in this population.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.075
Threshold uncertainty score0.487

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.251
Teacher spread0.238 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations1
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIproceedingsSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207