Prognostic Factors in Alcohol-associated Liver Disease Patients Presenting With First Evidence of Ascites
Bibliographic record
Abstract
GOALS: To identify factors associated with transplantation and death in alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD) patients presenting with first evidence of ascites. BACKGROUND: Ascites development is a poor prognostic sign for patients with cirrhosis. Among ALD patients, the baseline factors at time of ascites development that are associated with eventual transplantation or death are currently unknown. STUDY: Adult patients with ascites in the "Evaluating Alcohol Use in Alcohol-related Liver Disease Prospective Cohort Study" (NCT03267069 clinicaltrials.gov) were identified from 2016 to 2020. Demographic, clinical, and laboratory factors at initial ascites presentation were identified as potential predictors of transplant and death as competing risks. RESULTS: A total of 96 patients were identified. Median (interquartile range) follow-up time was 2.00 years (0.87 to 3.85). By last follow-up, 34/96 patients had been transplanted (35.4%) and 11/96 had died (11.4%). Prognostic factors for transplant included age per decade [hazard ratio (HR): 0.52 (95% CI, 0.33 to 0.83)], employed status [HR: 0.35 (95% CI, 0.14 to 0.90)], and sodium [HR: 0.94 (95% CI, 0.90 to 0.99)], whereas prognostic factors for death were body mass index [HR: 1.11 (95% CI, 1.00 to 1.22)], Charlson index [HR: 2.14 [95% CI, 1.13 to 4.08]), Maddrey Discriminant Function >32 (HR: 5.88 (95% CI, 1.18, 29.39)], aspartate aminotransferase [HR: 0.99 (95% CI, 0.98 to 0.997)], and a prior 12-month abstinence period [HR: 5.53 (95% CI, 1.10 to 27.83)], adjusted for age, sex, and ALD subcategory. CONCLUSIONS: Several factors at initial ascites presentation are associated with increased risk of transplantation or death and validation in larger cohorts will allow for improved risk stratification for ALD patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".