North American Practice-Based Recommendations for Transjugular Intrahepatic Portosystemic Shunts in Portal Hypertension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Complications of portal hypertension, including ascites, gastrointestinal bleeding, hepatic hydrothorax, and hepatic encephalopathy, are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite few high-quality randomized controlled trials to guide therapeutic decisions, transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) creation has emerged as a crucial therapeutic option to treat complications of portal hypertension. In North America, the decision to perform TIPS involves gastroenterologists, hepatologists, and interventional radiologists, but TIPS creation is performed by interventional radiologists. This is in contrast to other parts of the world where TIPS creation is performed primarily by hepatologists. Thus, the successful use of TIPS in North America is dependent on a multidisciplinary approach and technical expertise, so as to optimize outcomes. Recently, new procedural techniques, TIPS stent technology, and indications for TIPS have emerged. As a result, practices and outcomes vary greatly across institutions and significant knowledge gaps exist. In this consensus statement, the Advancing Liver Therapeutic Approaches group critically reviews the application of TIPS in the management of portal hypertension. Advancing Liver Therapeutic Approaches convened a multidisciplinary group of North American experts from hepatology, interventional radiology, transplant surgery, nephrology, cardiology, pulmonology, and hematology to critically review existing literature and develop practice-based recommendations for the use of TIPS in patients with any cause of portal hypertension in terms of candidate selection, procedural best practices and, post-TIPS management; and to develop areas of consensus for TIPS indications and the prevention of complications. Finally, future research directions are identified related to TIPS for the management of portal hypertension.
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 | 0.004 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.002 |
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".