Coagulopathy, Bleeding Events, and Outcome According to Rotational Thromboelastometry in Patients With Acute Liver Injury/Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Patients with acute liver injury or failure (ALI/ALF) experience bleeding complications uncommonly despite an abnormal hemostatic profile. Rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM), which assesses clot formation in whole blood, was used to determine the nature of abnormal hemostasis and whether it contributes to bleeding events, illness severity, or survival. APPROACH AND RESULTS: /L), patients frequently exhibited ROTEM parameters outside the normal range (73% and 62% had abnormalities in clot formation from extrinsic and intrinsic clotting cascades, respectively); however, measures of clot stability were generally normal. Eighteen patients (9%) experienced bleeding events, in whom clot initiation, assembly, and firmness were more severely deranged than patients without bleeding. Abnormal ROTEM parameters were more frequently observed in patients with non-acetaminophen ALI/ALF than those with acetaminophen ALI/ALF (clot initiation [P < 0.001], assembly [P = 0.02], firmness at 10 minutes [P = 0.05], and maximal firmness [P = 0.06]). Patients with more severe systemic complications (high-grade hepatic encephalopathy and need for renal replacement therapy) also had a higher incidence of abnormal ROTEM parameters. Finally, more hypocoagulable ROTEM parameters (clot initiation (P = 0.005), stiffness at 10 minutes (P = 0.05), and maximal stiffness by fibrin assembly (P = 0.004)) were observed in patients who died or underwent liver transplantation than those who survived with their native liver. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with ALI/ALF, abnormal ROTEM parameters are frequent and proportional to disease severity. Whether the increased bleeding risk associated with abnormal ROTEM indicates hemostatic failure or is a proxy for disease severity requires additional study.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".