MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

2806 Viral-Induced Acute Pancreatitis: A Systematic Review

2019· review· en· W2980002435 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Zaid Imam, C. Roberto Simons-Linares, Prabhleen Chahal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineEtiologyInternal medicineAcute pancreatitisViral hepatitisSerologyPancreatitisGastroenterologyEnglish languageImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Infectious (viral, bacterial, and fungal) etiologies are rare causes of acute pancreatitis (AP). We sought to investigate the frequency of viral-induced AP (VIAP), describe its natural course, and clinical features. METHODS: A comprehensive review of PubMed’s database of English language from the time of its inception and until April 12 th ,2019 was performed using all relevant MeSH (medical subject headings) keywords. AP diagnosis and severity were defined as per the Revised Atlanta Classification (RAC). Viral infections were diagnosed by serology and/or histology. A diagnosis of viral infection, with a concurrent AP diagnosis, a temporal resolution of both entities and the attempt to exclude the most common etiologies of AP defined VIAP. Graft pancreatitis studies and non-English publications were excluded. Two independent blinded reviewers (Z.I, C.R.S.L.) reviewed the publications. Bias risk was assessed with the Murad tool derived from the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: 209 cases were identified in 128 publications meeting criteria for VIAP and were reviewed (2 case control, 120 case reports, 6 case series) (Figure 1). Most studies 101 (78.3%) were at high risk of bias. Mean age was 38.9 ± 1.28 yrs for 170 patients. Male to female ratio was 2.2:1, and 52 (28.0%) of 186 patients were immunocompromised. Mean lipase was 1590 (range: 61-16879) and mean amylase was 1237 (range: 33-14800) in 103 and 156 patients. Viral hepatitis (A,B,C,D and E) was the most common virus and accounted for 34.4% of reported cases, followed by coxsackie and echoviruses at 14.8%, hemorrhagic fever viruses at 12.4%, CMV at 12.0%, VZV at 10.5%, mumps and measles at 3.8%, primary HIV infection at 3.8%, HSV at 1.9%, EBV at 1.9% and the remainder of cases (1.9%) attributed to adenovirus, influenza H1N1, and multiple viruses were implicated in 1% of cases. Severity of AP was: 43.1% mild, 11.7% moderately severe, 32.4% severe. Death was reported in 42 (20.1%) patients. Patient characteristics are summarized in Table 1. CONCLUSION: Although majority of patients were not immunocompromised (72%), a significant portion were immunocompromised (28.0%). Importantly, among those who died, 71.4% were immunocompromised. Mortality rate was higher than that reported for AP from other etiologies in the literature. Cholangiopathy and obstruction, direct acinar injury by viral replication are suggested pathogenesis mechanisms for virus attributed AP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.004
Bibliometrics0.0140.016
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.001

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 head0.028
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207