Effect of factor VIII and FVIII/PC ratio on portal vein thrombosis in liver cirrhosis: a systematic review and meta‑analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To date, there is an ongoing debate regarding the ability to predict PVT development using markers of FVIII or FVIII/PC ratio. This study presents evidence-based medical findings on the influence of FVIII activity levels and FVIII/PC values in the formation of PVT in cirrhosis. The search for original studies on risk factors for portal vein thrombosis (PVT) associated with cirrhosis was conducted, which primarily focused on comparing circulating FVIII activity levels or FVIII/PC ratio in cirrhotic patients with and without PVT. The quality of evidence from each study was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. The meta-analysis included a total of 10 original studies. In total, 2250 cirrhotic patients were included, with 414 having PVT and 1836 without PVT. The pooled analysis using a random-effects model showed no significant difference in standardized mean difference (SMD) for FVIII activity levels in cirrhotic patients with or without PVT (SMD = 0.12, 95% CI=-0.46 to 0.70, P = 0.68), but there was significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 95.52%, P = 0.00). Meta-regression analysis indicated that differences in mean FVIII activity levels in the PVT group, the number of cases in the non-PVT group, and the study design methods partially contributed to the heterogeneity ( P < 0.05). However, compared to the non-PVT group, the PVT group had higher FVIII/PC ratio with a statistically significant difference (SMD = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.15 to 0.63, P = 0.00), and there was no significant heterogeneity (I 2 = 28.62%). In conclusion, the FVIII/PC ratio not only reflects the severity of liver disease, but also can be used as one of the predictors of PVT development.
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 | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.017 | 0.036 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".