MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3021646980 · doi:10.1002/lt.25788

Liver Transplantation for Acute‐on‐Chronic Liver Failure: Science or Fiction?

2020· review· en· W3021646980 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Jonel Trebicka, Vinay Sundaram, Richard Moreau, Rajiv Jalan, Vicente Arroyo

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersDr. Falk PharmaGrifolsDeutsche ForschungsgemeinschaftEuropean CommissionGilead SciencesMallinckrodt PharmaceuticalsIntercept PharmaceuticalsCSL BehringFundación Cellex
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationDecompensationCirrhosisChronic liver diseaseIntensive care medicineTransplantationLiver diseaseLiver failureGastroenterologyInternal medicineDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Acute clinical deterioration of a patient with chronic liver disease remains a decisive time point both in terms of medical management and prognosis. This condition, also known as acute decompensation (AD), is an important event determining a crossroad in the trajectory of patients. A significant number of patients with AD may develop hepatic or extrahepatic organ failure, or both, which defines the syndrome acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF), and ACLF is associated with a high morbidity and short-term mortality. ACLF may occur at any phase during chronic liver disease and is pathogenetically defined by systemic inflammation and immune metabolic dysfunction. When organ failures develop in the presence of cirrhosis, especially extrahepatic organ failures, liver transplantation (LT) may be the only curative treatment. This review outlines the evidence supporting LT in ACLF patients, highlighting the role of timing, bridging to LT, and possible indicators of futility. Importantly, prospective studies on ACLF and transplantation are urgently needed.

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 score0.674
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.296 · 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

Citations74
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207