The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease Accurately Predicts 90-Day Liver Transplant Wait-List Mortality in Atlantic Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the generalizability of the predictions for 90-day mortality generated by Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) and the serum sodium augmented MELD (MELDNa) to Atlantic Canadian adults with end-stage liver disease awaiting liver transplantation (LT). METHODS: The predictive accuracy of the MELD and the MELDNa was evaluated by measurement of the discrimination and calibration of the respective models' estimates for the occurrence of 90-day mortality in a consecutive cohort of LT candidates accrued over a five-year period. Accuracy of discrimination was measured by the area under the ROC curves. Calibration accuracy was evaluated by comparing the observed and model-estimated incidences of 90-day wait-list failure for the total cohort and within quantiles of risk. RESULTS: The area under the ROC curve for the MELD was 0.887 (95% CI 0.705 to 0.978) - consistent with very good accuracy of discrimination. The area under the ROC curve for the MELDNa was 0.848 (95% CI 0.681 to 0.965). The observed incidence of 90-day wait-list mortality in the validation cohort was 7.9%, which was not significantly different from the MELD estimate of 6.6% (95% CI 4.9% to 8.4%; P=0.177) or the MELDNa estimate of 5.8% (95% CI 3.5% to 8.0%; P=0.065). Global goodness-of-fit testing found no evidence of significant lack of fit for either model (Hosmer-Lemeshow c2 [df=3] for MELD 2.941, P=0.401; for MELDNa 2.895, P=0.414). CONCLUSION: Both the MELD and the MELDNa accurately predicted the occurrence of 90-day wait-list mortality in the study cohort and, therefore, are generalizable to Atlantic Canadians with end-stage liver disease awaiting LT.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".