Bibliographic record
Abstract
Standard of care for the treatment of ascites in cirrhosis is to administer a sodium-restricted diet and diuretic therapy. The progression of cirrhosis will eventually lead to the development of refractory ascites, at which point diuretics will no longer be able to control the ascites. Second-line therapies such as a transjugular intrahepatic portosystemic shunt (TIPS) placement or repeat large volume paracentesis are then required. There is some evidence that regular infusions of albumin may delay the onset of refractoriness and improve survival, especially if given at an early stage in the natural history of ascites and for a long enough duration. The use of TIPS can eliminate ascites, but its insertion is associated with complications, especially cardiac decompensation and worsening of hepatic encephalopathy. New information is now available regarding how to best select patients for TIPS, what type of cardiac investigations are needed and how under-dilating the TIPS at the time of insertion may help. The use of a non-absorbable antibiotics, such as rifaximin, starting in the pre-TIPS period may also reduce the likelihood of post-TIPS hepatic encephalopathy. In patients who are not suitable for TIPS, the use of an alfapump to remove the ascites via the bladder can improve quality of life without significantly altering survival. In the future it may be possible to use metabolomics to help refine the management of patients with ascites, e.g. to assess their response to non-selective beta-blockers or to predict the development of other complications such as acute kidney injury.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.002 |
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".