MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

S272 Increased Risk of Venous Thromboembolism in Hospitalized Acute Pancreatitis Patients: A National Analysis

2025· article· en· W4415540958 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ali Osman, Mohamed Abdallah, Mohammad Bilal

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatitis Pathology and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcute pancreatitisPulmonary embolismDeep veinHazard ratioPancreatitisCohortIncidence (geometry)Retrospective cohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Acute pancreatitis (AP) admissions continue to rise with gall-stone disease and alcohol use. Contemporary protocols have cut mortality and length-of-stay (LOS), yet inflation-adjusted hospital costs have doubled. Bacterial translocation across a disrupted gut barrier is the main driver of infected necrosis and sepsis, prompting interest in microbiome-modulating agents (MMAs: probiotics or synbiotics). These products are costly and not standard of care. We therefore synthesized all modern evidence to clarify whether MMAs improve clinically relevant AP outcomes. Methods: Embase, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and Scopus were searched to 8 May 2025. Two reviewers screened and extracted data; high-risk studies (RoB-2 or Newcastle-Ottawa) were removed in sensitivity analyses. A Bayesian random-effects network meta-analysis (gemtc, R2jags 4.3.2) pooled direct and indirect evidence; node-splitting tested inconsistency and meta-regression explored severity effects. The primary endpoint was a composite of infected pancreatic necrosis and extra-pancreatic infections; secondary endpoints were all-cause mortality and LOS. Odds ratios (OR) were calculated for dichotomous and mean differences for continuous data. Results: Nineteen studies (15 randomized controlled trials, 4 cohorts; n = 1 430, 83% severe AP) met criteria and were included in our review. Three probiotic/synbiotic regimens formed a connected evidence network.4-strain Chinese mix + early enteral nutrition vs control: infection OR 0.28 (0.11–0.69), I² 12%; LOS –5.6 days (–9.2 to –2.1); mortality OR 0.28 (0.06–1.29). Synbiotic 2000: infection OR 0.41 (0.18–0.93), I² 5%; LOS –4.9 days (–8.1 to –1.7); mortality OR 0.50 (0.11–2.27). PROPATRIA 6-strain mix: infection OR 0.96 (0.67–1.37); LOS mean differences +0.3 days (–2.4 to +3.1); mortality excess OR 2.53 (1.22–5.25). An indirect comparison of Synbiotic 2000 vs 4-strain mix showed no significant difference (OR 1.46 [0.55–3.86]). Global heterogeneity was low–moderate (I² ≤ 38%); no inconsistency or severity interaction was detected. Conclusion: Modern synbiotic formulations (Synbiotic 2000 and the contemporary 4-strain Chinese mix) reduce infectious complications and shorten hospital stay in AP without increasing deaths, whereas the older PROPATRIA preparation confers no benefit and may be harmful. Benefits appear strain-specific; MMAs should not be used interchangeably. Large, multinational randomized controlled trials evaluating a single, standardized agent are warranted before routine adoption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.018
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.004
GPT teacher head0.260
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicPancreatitis Pathology and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207