Variation in the Care of Acute Liver Failure: A Survey of Intensive Care Professionals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare disease with potentially high mortality. We sought to assess the individual approach to ALF by intensive care unit (ICU) professionals. METHODS: Cross-sectional survey of ICU professionals. Web-based survey capturing data on respondents' demographics, characteristics of patients with ALF admitted to ICU, and their management. RESULTS: Among 204 participants from 50 countries, 140 (68.6%) worked in Europe, 146 (71.6%) were intensivists, 142 (69.6%) admitted <25 patients with ALF per year, and 166 (81.8%) reported <25% of patients had paracetamol-related ALF. On patients' outcomes, 126 (75.0%) reported an emergency liver transplantation (ELT) rate <25% and 140 (73.3%) a hospital mortality rate <50%. The approach to ALF in the ICU varied with age, region, level of training, type of hospital, and etiology (prescribing N-acetylcysteine for paracetamol toxicity, triggers for endotracheal intubation, measurement of and strategies for lowering serum ammonia, extracorporeal device deployment, and prophylactic antibiotics). CONCLUSIONS: The management of patients with ALF by ICU professionals differed substantially concerning the relevant clinical measures taken. Further education and high-quality research are warranted.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".