Use of albumin infusion for cirrhosis-related complications: An international position statement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background & Aims: Numerous studies have evaluated the role of human albumin (HA) in managing various liver cirrhosis-related complications. However, their conclusions remain partially controversial, probably because HA was evaluated in different settings, including indications, patient characteristics, and dosage and duration of therapy. Methods: Thirty-three investigators from 19 countries with expertise in the management of liver cirrhosis-related complications were invited to organise an International Special Interest Group. A three-round Delphi consensus process was conducted to complete the international position statement on the use of HA for treatment of liver cirrhosis-related complications. Results: Twelve clinically significant position statements were proposed. Short-term infusion of HA should be recommended for the management of hepatorenal syndrome, large volume paracentesis, and spontaneous bacterial peritonitis in liver cirrhosis. Its effects on the prevention or treatment of other liver cirrhosis-related complications should be further elucidated. Long-term HA administration can be considered in specific settings. Pulmonary oedema should be closely monitored as a potential adverse effect in cirrhotic patients receiving HA infusion. Conclusions: Based on the currently available evidence, the international position statement suggests the potential benefits of HA for the management of multiple liver cirrhosis-related complications and summarises its safety profile. However, its optimal timing and infusion strategy remain to be further elucidated. Impact and implications: Thirty-three investigators from 19 countries proposed 12 position statements on the use of human albumin (HA) infusion in liver cirrhosis-related complications. Based on current evidence, short-term HA infusion should be recommended for the management of HRS, LVP, and SBP; whereas, long-term HA administration can be considered in the setting where budget and logistical issues can be resolved. However, pulmonary oedema should be closely monitored in cirrhotic patients who receive HA infusion.
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 | 0.050 | 0.051 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".