Secondary prophylaxis of variceal hemorrhage in biliary atresia—Analysis of prospective multicenter studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastroesophageal variceal hemorrhage (VH) can lead to morbidity and occasionally mortality in biliary atresia (BA), including decompensation in hepatic function and accelerated listing for liver transplantation.[1][2][3][4] We have previously reported that the 5-year incidence of VH in BA is 8%-10%.5 Guidelines, based upon expert opinion for treatment of pediatric portal hypertension (PHT), recommend secondary prophylaxis of esophageal varices following a bleeding episode to prevent further bleeding episodes and decompensation.6 Guidelines for adults recommend secondary prophylaxis by variceal ligation (EVL) and/or propranolol/carvedilol. 7 There are few studies that systematically and prospectively evaluated the management and outcome after VH in BA.The Childhood Liver Disease Research Network (ChiLDReN), funded by the National Institute of Diabetes, Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK)/ National Institute of Health, conducts the Prospective Database of Infants with Cholestasis (PROBE; Clinical Trials.gov:NCT00061828) and the Biliary Atresia Study in Infants and Children (BASIC; Clinical Trials.gov:NCT00345553).These are incident and prevalent cohorts, respectively, designed to prospectively acquire clinical data, allowing for analysis of the natural history and interventional approaches after VH in BA. | METHODS | Ethics statementResearch was conducted in accordance with both the Declaration of Helsinki and the Istanbul Declaration.All participating ChiLDReN centers had institutional and central review boards and/or research ethics approval.Written informed consent was obtained from parents and/or guardians, and
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 | 0.020 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".