MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214680987 · doi:10.14740/gr1485

Hemorrhagic Ascites Is Associated With Reduced Survival in Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2022· review· en· W4214680987 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Umair Iqbal, Zohaib Ahmed, Nihit M. Shah, Wade Lee‐Smith, Ali Nawras, Harshit S. Khara, Aijaz Ahmed, Sandeep Khurana

Bibliographic record

VenueGastroenterology Research · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAscitesInternal medicineCirrhosisGastroenterologySpontaneous bacterial peritonitisHepatic encephalopathyConfidence intervalOdds ratioMeta-analysis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hemorrhagic ascites is characterized as red blood cell count greater than 10,000/mm 3 . In cirrhosis, ascites is an event of decompensation, and associated with poor prognosis. However, significance of hemorrhagic ascites is unclear. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the significance of hemorrhagic ascites in cirrhotic patients. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in Embase, MEDLINE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, the World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trial Registry, and Web of Science Core Collection to identify studies till March 2021, which, in patients with cirrhosis, compared outcomes amongst those with hemorrhagic ascites to those with non-hemorrhagic ascites. The primary outcome was 3-year mortality, and secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), hepatic encephalopathy (HE), spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) and portal vein thrombosis (PVT). Results: Four studies, with 2,058 cirrhosis patients, were included. Among these, 1,488 patients had non-hemorrhagic ascites and 570 had hemorrhagic ascites. We observed no significant differences in AKI (odds ratio (OR) = 2.55; confidence interval (CI): 0.58 - 11.24), HE (OR = 2.52; CI: 0.70 - 9.05), SBP (OR = 1.66; CI: 0.12 - 22.83) and PVT (OR = 0.99; CI: 0.71 - 1.39). Intensive care unit (ICU) stay was significantly higher in patients with hemorrhagic ascites compared to those with non-hemorrhagic ascites (OR = 1.79; CI: 1.37 - 2.36; I 2 = 56%). Pooled 3-year mortality was significantly higher in those with hemorrhagic (72.5% (CI: 68.2-76.4%)) when compared to non-hemorrhagic ascites (57.9% (CI: 55.2-60.6%)) (OR = 2.17; CI: 1.71 - 2.74) with low heterogeneity (I 2 = 15%). Conclusions: In patients with cirrhosis, hemorrhagic ascites is a poor prognostic marker, which is associated with increased ICU stay and mortality. Prospective studies are needed to further evaluate significance of hemorrhagic ascites in patients with cirrhosis. Gastroenterol Res. 2022;15(1):26-32 doi: https://doi.org/10.14740/gr1485

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.672
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.222
GPT teacher head0.423
Teacher spread0.201 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueGastroenterology ResearchSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207