Prognostic value of C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio in acute pancreatitis: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background : Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common disorder and although most of the cases are mild, the mortality risk is high when it comes to severe AP. It is therefore important to determine the severity of AP as early as possible. This review aimed to determine the prognostic value of C-reactive protein-to-albumin ratio (CRP/alb ratio) in patients with AP. Methods : We performed a systematic search on the electronic databases PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library up to January 2023. Studies reporting CRP/alb ratio on admission and its association with severity or mortality in AP patients were included. We calculated pooled mean difference (MD) and their 95% confidence intervals (CI) using a random-effects model. Quality assessment of the included studies was appraised using a Newcastle–Ottawa scale. Results : A total of six studies comprising 2244 patients were included in this meta-analysis. Severe AP had higher CRP/alb ratio on admission than mild-moderate AP (pooled MD: 3.59; 95% CI: 2.51-4.68; p<0.00001). CRP/alb ratio was also significantly higher on non-survivor AP patients compared to survivor AP patients (pooled MD: 2.12; 95% CI: 0.43-3.8; p < 0.01). Conclusion : High CRP/alb ratio can be used as an early predictor of poor prognosis in patients with AP.
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 | 0.013 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".