HBV-related acute-on-chronic liver failure with underlying chronic hepatitis has superior survival compared to cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute-on-chronic liver failure (ACLF) is divided into three types according to the underlying liver disease: non-cirrhosis (type A), compensated cirrhosis (type B) and decompensated cirrhosis (type C). However, whether the underlying chronic liver diseases impact the ACLF prognosis is not clear. The present study aimed to compare the characteristics and outcomes of type A and type B hepatitis B virus (HBV)-ACLF patients. METHODS: According to the European Association for the Study of Liver-Chronic Liver Failure (EASL-CLIF) diagnostic criteria, 86 type A HBV-ACLF and 71 type B HBV-ACLF were prospectively enrolled. The demography and laboratory data, organ failures, ACLF grades and prognosis were evaluated. Univariate and multivariate Cox regression analyses were performed to analyze the prognostic factors. RESULTS: The 28-day and 90-day mortality rates of type A and type B ACLF were 20.9 vs. 60.6% and 34.9 vs. 73.2%, respectively (both P < 0.001). Patients with type A ACLF were younger, had higher viral load and higher levels of alanine aminotransferase and aspartate aminotransferase, platelet count, serum albumin and sodium, international normalized ratio and alpha-fetoprotein, lower rate of ascites, lower Child-Pugh scores and CLIF sequential organ failure assessment scores, higher rate of coagulation failure. Type B ACLF had more renal and cerebral failure. Cirrhosis was one of the independent prognostic factors [hazard ratio, 2.4 (95% CI, 1.451-3.818) P < 0.001]. CONCLUSION: ACLF developing on noncirrhotic chronic hepatitis B had more serious liver inflammation but fewer extrahepatic organ failures and better outcome than ACLF developing from compensated HBV cirrhosis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".