MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4226370956 · doi:10.4103/ijn.ijn_314_20

Hemodialysis-related portal-systemic encephalopathy: A rare cause of recurrent encephalopathy among patients on maintenance hemodialysis

2022· article· en· W4226370956 on OpenAlexaff
Feroz Aziz, IsmailN Aboobacker, Sooraj Sasindran, Sajith Narayanan, Sreejesh Balakrishnan, Raghuram Bhat, Anjaney Yadur, AbdulGafoor Pacheerikuth, KollengodeG Ramakrishnan, N. A. Uvais

Bibliographic record

VenueIndian Journal of Nephrology · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeurological Complications and Syndromes
Canadian institutionsASTER
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisEncephalopathyIntensive care medicineHepatic encephalopathyInternal medicineCirrhosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portal-systemic venous shunts can rarely develop without any intrinsic liver diseases. However, the cause of shunt formation in these cases are not very clear. Literature suggests that hemodialysis can precipitate symptoms in patients with asymptomatic portal-systemic venous shunts (PSVS). Rare presentations of recurrent encephalopathy due to PSVS in the absence of liver dysfunction has been described in patients undergoing hemodialysis. We report a rare case of recurrent Hemodialysis Related Porto-Systemic Encephalopathy (HRPSE) in a 50-year old male during maintenance hemodialysis secondary to a PSVS between the portal vein and left renal vein. Shunt embolism by an 18 mm Amplatzer vascular plug (AVR II) was done and follow up CT showed complete occlusion of collaterals. Post-procedure, he is undergoing thrice-weekly Hemodialysis of 4 hours duration till date with no further incidence of encephalopathy. Our report indicates that recurrent encephalopathy can occur in dialysis patients due to symptomatic PSVS and HRPSE should be considered even in non-cirrhotic cases for early detection and effective management.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.781

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.243
Teacher spread0.229 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIndian Journal of NephrologySame topicNeurological Complications and SyndromesFrench-language works237,207