Hypophosphatemia as a prognostic tool for post-hepatectomy liver failure: A systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Post-hepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) is one of the main causes of postoperative mortality and is challenging to predict early in patients after liver resection. Some studies suggest that the postoperative serum phosphorus might predict outcomes in these patients. AIM: To perform a systematic literature review on hypophosphatemia and evaluate it as a prognostic factor for PHLF and overall morbidity. METHODS: This systematic review was performed according to preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses statement. A study protocol for the review was registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews database. PubMed, Cochrane and Lippincott Williams & Wilkins databases were systematically searched up to March 31, 2022 for studies analyzing postoperative hypophosphatemia as a prognostic factor for PHLF, overall postoperative morbidity and liver regeneration. The quality assessment of the included cohort studies was performed according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. RESULTS: After final assessment, nine studies (eight retrospective and one prospective cohort study) with 1677 patients were included in the systematic review. All selected studies scored ≥ 6 points according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Cutoff values of hypophosphatemia varied from < 1 mg/dL to ≤ 2.5 mg/dL in selected studies with ≤ 2.5 mg/dL being the most used defining value. Five studies analyzed PHLF, while the remaining four analyzed overall complications as a main outcome associated with hypophosphatemia. Only two of the selected studies analyzed postoperative liver regeneration, with reported better postoperative liver regeneration in cases of postoperative hypophosphatemia. In three studies hypophosphatemia was associated with better postoperative outcomes, while six studies revealed hypophosphatemia as a predictive factor for worse patient outcomes. CONCLUSION: Changes of the postoperative serum phosphorus level might be useful for predicting outcomes after liver resection. However, routine measurement of perioperative serum phosphorus levels remains questionable and should be evaluated individually.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".