A Thorough Study and Meta-Analysis of The Prognostic Relevance of the C-Reactive Protein-Albumin Ratio in Acute Pancreatitis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Although most cases of acute pancreatitis (AP) are minor, severe cases are associated with a substantial risk of death. Acute pancreatitis (AP) is a common illness. Therefore, it is critical to assess AP severity as soon as possible. This review aimed to ascertain the predictive significance of the CRP to albumin ratio in individuals with AP. Methods: We searched PubMed, Science Direct, and Cochrane Library electronic databases Until January 2023. Studies that reported the CRP/alb ratio at admission and its relationship to the severity or death of patients with AP were included. Using a random-effects model, we computed the pooled mean difference (MD) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The quality of the included studies was evaluated using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Results: This meta-analysis combined data from six trials with a total of 2244 patients. Upon admission, the CRP/alb ratio was higher in patients with severe AP than in those with mild to moderate AP (pooled MD:3.59; 95% CI:2.51- 4.68; p<0.00001). Additionally, non-survivor AP patients had a substantially higher CRP/alb ratio than survivor AP patients (pooled MD:2.12; 95% CI:0.43-3.8; p < 0.01). In conclusion, individuals with AP may benefit from a high CRP/ALB ratio as a preliminary indicator of poor prognosis.
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 | 0.025 | 0.056 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.061 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| 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".