Outcomes among patients with hepatorenal syndrome based on hospital teaching and transplant status: Analysis of 159 845 hospitalizations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background and Aim Hepatorenal syndrome (HRS) is a life‐threatening complication of advanced liver disease. This study aimed to examine the impact of hospital teaching/transplant status and availability of liver transplantation on survival among hospitalized patients with HRS in the United States. Methods Patients with HRS were identified from the national inpatient sample 2016–2019. Information was collected regarding patient demographics, hospital characteristics, liver disease etiology, presence of liver disease decompensations, Elixhauser comorbidities, and interventions. Patients were classified as being treated at three hospital groups: non‐teaching hospitals (NTHs), teaching non‐transplant centers (TNTCs), and teaching transplant centers (TTCs). The relationship between hospital teaching/transplant status and in‐hospital mortality and transplant‐free mortality was examined using multivariable linear and logistic regression analysis. Results A total of 159,845 patients met the criteria for HRS. Of these, 24% were admitted to NTHs, 50.8% to TNTCs, and 25.2% to TTCs. Admission to a TTC was independently associated with a lower mortality risk compared to admission to non‐TTCs (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.68–0.83, P <0.001). Patients at TTCs had a lower transplant‐free mortality risk than those at NTHs (aOR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.67–0.83, P < 0.001). There was no significant difference in all‐cause or transplant‐free mortality between TNTCs and NTHs. Conclusion Patients with HRS admitted to TTCs have higher disease severity, but significantly improved outcomes compared to those admitted to NTHs. These data suggest opportunities for increased disease awareness and education among NTHs and support early referral for liver transplant evaluation among hospitalized patients with HRS.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".