Inpatient Screening, Brief Intervention, and Referral to Treatment for Alcohol Use Disorder in Patients Admitted with Alcohol-associated Liver Disease Is Not Universally Implemented in Practice, But Can Reduce Readmissions for Alcohol-associated Hepatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction The management of alcohol-related liver disease requires a multidisciplinary approach to treat alcohol use disorder. We aimed to determine the proportion of actively drinking patients admitted for alcohol-associated hepatitis (AAH) or decompensated alcohol-related cirrhosis (DARLC) who were offered or underwent screening, brief intervention, and referral to treatment (SBIRT) for alcohol use disorder during admission and if inpatient SBIRT is associated with reduced readmissions for alcohol-related liver disease. Methods We conducted a retrospective cohort study of actively drinking patients admitted to our institution from January 2017 to December 2021 with AAH or DARLC. Logistic regression was used to identify factors, such as conducting SBIRT, that were associated with 30-day and 90-day readmissions for recurrent AAH or DARLC. Results There were 120 AAH admissions (mean age 47.7 ± 13.6 years), and 177 DARLC admissions (mean age 58.2 ± 9.5 years). SBIRT was conducted in only 51.7% of AAH admissions, and 23.7% of DARLC admissions. For AAH, conducting SBIRT was associated with significantly reduced 30-day (OR 0.098, P = 0.001, 95% CI 0.024–0.408) and 90-day (OR 0.166, P = 0.003, 95% CI 0.052–0.534) readmissions. For DARLC, there was no association between conducting SBIRT and 30-day or 90-day readmissions. Conclusion SBIRT was conducted with actively drinking patients in only 51.7% of AAH admissions and 23.7% of DARLC admissions. Patients admitted for AAH who received inpatient SBIRT had decreased 30-day and 90-day readmission rates for AAH or DARLC.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".