Symptom Burden Is Associated with Increased Emergency Department Utilization among Patients with Cirrhosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Patients with cirrhosis have significant morbidity and mortality, as well as substantial symptom burden. Objective: We investigated the relationship between symptom burden and inpatient health care utilization among patients with cirrhosis. Methods: Adult patients with cirrhosis being evaluated for or awaiting liver transplantation at an academic institution in the United States completed the Edmonton Symptom Assessment Scale (ESAS), a validated symptom evaluation tool with total scores ranging from 0 to 90. The outcomes of interest were emergency department (ED) visits, nonelective hospitalizations, hospital days, intensive care unit (ICU) admissions, and 30-day readmissions within 6 months. Adjusted incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were used to examine the relationship between ESAS scores and outcomes. Results: Of 233 patients (43% female, median age 61), the median total ESAS score was 16 (interquartile range 6–30). Higher total scores on the ESAS were associated with increased ED visits, hospitalizations, hospital days, and ICU days (all p < 0.04). After adjusting for age, gender, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease-sodium, ESAS total score remained an independent predictor of ED visits (IRR 1.05, confidence interval [95% CI] 1.00–1.10, p = 0.03). Multivariate ESAS subscale analyses revealed that the physical symptom score was associated with ED visits (IRR 1.09, 95% CI 1.02–1.16, p = 0.01), but the psychological symptom score was not (IRR 1.03, 95% CI 1.00–1.08, p = 0.15). Conclusions: Patient-reported symptoms, particularly physical symptoms, are independently associated with ED visits among patients with cirrhosis being considered for liver transplantation. Further research is needed to examine whether addressing symptoms more aggressively, such as with palliative care co-management, could decrease ED utilization in this population.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".