MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4251996919 · doi:10.22374/cjgim.v10i3.53

A Review of Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: From Obesity to Liver Transplant

2015· review· en· W4251996919 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Adjoa Anyane‐Yeboa, Charmaine A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of General Internal Medicine · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFatty liverCirrhosisHepatocellular carcinomaGastroenterologyEtiologyAlcoholic hepatitisInternal medicineLiver diseaseAlcoholic liver diseaseObesityDiabetes mellitusDiseaseEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary Non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) is becoming an increasingly common etiology of liver disease in the United States. As the prevalence of diabetes and obesity continues to increase, it will soon surpass hepatitis C as the most common etiology of end stage liver disease in the western world. NAFLD like many liver diseases can progress to cirrhosis, and patients often suffer morbidity secondary to the complications of portal hypertension. The exact percentage of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) that occurs in NAFLD patients is unknown, however, unlike many other liver diseases there is small potential for development of HCC independent of cirrhosis. Various conservative and pharmacologic therapies have been studied with varying degrees of efficacy including lifestyle modifications, bile acids, insulin sensitizers, vitamin E, and bariatric surgery. However, the only curative treatment for NAFLD cirrhosis is liver transplant. As the epidemic that is NAFLD continues to grow, more studies will need to be done to develop new therapies and curative treatments.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.001

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.346
Teacher spread0.276 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
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

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of General Internal MedicineSame topicLiver Disease Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207