MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3001159494 · doi:10.1002/hep.31125

A Prognostic Strategy Based on Stage of Cirrhosis and HVPG to Improve Risk Stratification After Variceal Bleeding

2020· article· en· W3001159494 on OpenAlexaff
Vincenzo La Mura, Marta Garcia‐Guix, Annalisa Berzigotti, Juan G. Abraldeṣ, Juan Carlos García‐Pagán, Càndid Villanueva, Jaime Bosch

Bibliographic record

VenueHepatology · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
FundersInstituto de Salud Carlos III
KeywordsMedicinePortal venous pressureAscitesCirrhosisGastroenterologyInternal medicinePortal hypertensionNadololVaricesHepatic encephalopathyEsophageal varicesLiver transplantationPropranololTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: A hepatic venous pressure gradient (HVPG) decrease of 20% or more (or ≤12 mm Hg) indicates a good prognosis during propranolol/nadolol treatment but requires two HVPG measurements. We aimed to simplify the risk stratification after variceal bleeding using clinical data and HVPG. METHODS: A total of 193 patients with cirrhosis (62% with ascites and/or hepatic encephalopathy [HE]) who were within 7 days of bleeding had their HVPG measured before and at 1-3 months of treatment with propranolol/nadolol plus endoscopic band ligation. The endpoints were rebleeding and rebleeding/transplantation-free survival for 4 years. Another cohort (n = 231) served as the validation set. RESULTS: During follow-up, 45 patients had variceal bleeding and 61 died. The HVPG responders (n = 71) had lower rebleeding risk (10% vs. 34%, P = 0.001) and better survival than the 122 nonresponders (61% vs. 39%, P = 0.001). Patients with HE (n = 120) had lower survival than patients without HE (40% vs. 63%, P = 0.005). Among the patients with ascites/HE, those with baseline HVPG ≤ 16 mm Hg (n = 16) had a low rebleeding risk (13%). In contrast, among patients with ascites/HE and baseline HVPG > 16 mm Hg, only the HVPG responders (n = 32) had a good prognosis, with lower rebleeding risk and better survival than the nonresponders (n = 72) (respective proportions: 7% vs. 39%, P = 0.018; 56% vs. 30% P = 0.010). These findings allowed us to develop a strategy for risk stratification in which HVPG response was measured only in patients with ascites and/or HE and baseline HVPG > 16 mm Hg. This method reduced the "gray zone" (i.e., high-risk patients who had not died on follow-up) from 46% to 35% and decreased the HVPG measurements required by 42%. The validation cohort confirmed these results. CONCLUSIONS: Restricting HVPG measurements to patients with ascites/HE and measuring HVPG response only if the patient's baseline HVPG is over 16 mm Hg improves detection of high-risk patients while markedly reducing the number of HVPG measurements required.

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 score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.306

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.240 · 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

Citations54
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHepatologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207