ArticleScientific reports2020
Explorative study of serum biomarkers of liver failure after liver resection.
Article in Scientific reports, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Impact ofPlants (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Nitrogen Deprivation Drives Red Motile Cell Formation inMetabolites · 2025Article
- Advances in Canine Anesthesia: Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling for Predicting Propofol Plasma Profiles in Canines with Hepatic Impairment.Pharmaceuticals (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Changes in TNF-α, IL-33, and MIP-1α before and after artificial liver support treatment and their prognostic value.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Analysis of differential neonatal lethality in cystathionine β-synthase deficient mouse models using metabolic profiling.FASEB journal : official publication of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology · 2021Article
- Lipidomic signatures of post-hepatectomy liver failure using porcine hepatectomy models.Annals of translational medicine · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Conventional biochemical markers have limited usefulness in the prediction of early liver dysfunction. We, therefore, tried to find more useful liver failure biomarkers after liver resection that are highly sensitive to internal and external challenges in the biological system with a focus on liver metabolites. Twenty pigs were divided into the following 3 groups: sham operation group (n = 6), 70% hepatectomy group (n = 7) as a safety margin of resection model, and 90% hepatectomy group (n = 7) as a liver failure model. Blood sampling was performed preoperatively and at 1, 6, 14, 30, 38, and 48 hours after surgery, and 129 primary metabolites were profiled. Orthogonal projection to latent structures-discriminant analysis revealed that, unlike in the 70% hepatectomy and sham operation groups, central carbon metabolism was the most significant factor in the 90% hepatectomy group. Binary logistic regression analysis was used to develop a predictive model for mortality risk following hepatectomy. The recommended variables were malic acid, methionine, tryptophan, glucose, and γ-aminobutyric acid. Area under the curve of the linear combination of five metabolites was 0.993 (95% confidence interval: 0.927-1.000, sensitivity: 100.0, specificity: 94.87). We proposed robust biomarker panels that can accurately predict mortality risk associated with hepatectomy.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.