Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The definition and diagnostic criteria of hepatorenal syndrome-acute kidney injury (HRS-AKI) has undergone recent changes. A major vasoconstrictor, terlipressin, has recently been approved as pharmacotherapy for HRS-AKI in the United States. The purpose of this review is to familiarize the readers with these new diagnostic criteria of HRS-AKI, and how best to use terlipressin. RECENT FINDINGS: Terlipressin is effective either as bolus dosing or continuous infusion and can achieve reversal of HRS-AKI in approximately 40% of patients. Continuous infusion allows lower daily dose with equal efficacy and less side effects but not an approved mode of administration in the United States. Response to terlipressin in the randomized controlled trials was defined as repeat reduction of serum creatinine to less than 1.5 mg/dl. Newer studies will likely require response to treatment to be defined as a repeat serum creatinine to be less than 0.3 mg/dl from baseline. Terlipressin use is associated with ischemic side effects and potential for respiratory failure development. SUMMARY: Careful patient selection and close monitoring are necessary for its use. Response to terlipressin with HRS-AKI reversal is associated with improved outcomes with better survival and less requirement for renal replacement therapy.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".