Comparing Outcomes of Donation After Cardiac Death Versus Donation After Brain Death in Liver Transplant Recipients with Hepatitis C: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) using organs donated after cardiac death (DCD) is increasing due, in large part, to a shortage of organs. The outcome of using DCD organs in recipients with hepatits C virus (HCV) infection remains unclear due to the limited experience and number of publications addressing this issue. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the clinical outcomes of DCD versus donation after brain death (DBD) in HCV-positive patients undergoing LT. METHODS: Studies comparing DCD versus DBD LT in HCV-positive patients were identified based on systematic searches of seven electronic databases and multiple sources of gray literature. RESULTS: The search identified 58 citations, including three studies, with 324 patients meeting eligibility criteria. The use of DCD livers was associated with a significantly higher risk of primary nonfunction (RR 5.49 [95% CI 1.53 to 19.64]; P=0.009; I2=0%), while not associated with a significantly different patient survival (RR 0.89 [95% CI 0.37 to 2.11]; P=0.79; I2=51%), graft survival (RR 0.40 [95% CI 0.14 to 1.11]; P=0.08; I2=34%), rate of recurrence of severe HCV infection (RR 2.74 [95% CI 0.36 to 20.92]; P=0.33; I2=84%), retransplantation or liver disease-related death (RR 1.79 [95% CI 0.66 to 4.84]; P=0.25; I2=44%), and biliary complications. CONCLUSIONS: While the literature and quality of studies assessing DCD versus DBD grafts are limited, there was significantly more primary nonfunction and a trend toward decreased graft survival, but no significant difference in biliary complications or recipient mortality rates between DCD and DBD LT in patients with HCV infection. There is insufficient literature on the topic to draw any definitive conclusions.
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 | 0.010 | 0.030 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.040 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".