The “Two‐Step” approach for classifying the severity of acute pancreatitis: A retrospective study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Revised Atlanta Classification (RAC) and Determinant-Based Classification (DBC) are currently two widely adopted systems for evaluating the severity of acute pancreatitis (AP). This study aimed to overcome the inaccuracies and limitations that existed in them. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed 298 patients with AP. The "Two-Step" approach was divided into an early organ failure (OF) assessment: (I) none, (II) transient, (III) single persistent, and (IV) multiple persistent; and a later local complications assessment: (A) none, (B) sterile, and (C) infectious. Patients with AP who died before the second step were classified into category X. The "Two-Step" approach was then compared to the RAC and DBC. RESULTS: As the patients' grades increased (I to IV), organ support treatment rates, intensive care unit lengths of stay, and mortalities increased. Invasive intervention rates displayed increasing trends with local complications aggravated (A to C). Patients in category X were older and had higher Marshall scores with the highest grades of severity. CONCLUSIONS: By combining the early OF grades and the late local complications, the "Two-Step" approach represents an accurate classification system required for stratified studies of AP, and introduces the category X as the severest forms of 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 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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".