Liver Transplant Candidate Unsuitability: A Review of the British Columbia Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Every centre has contraindications to liver transplantation and declares patients unsuitable for medical or nonmedical reasons. To date, there has been no published review of any centre's experience. METHODS: A retrospective chart review was completed from 1997 to 2001, inclusive of all patients referred for liver transplant to the British Columbia Transplant Society who were declared unsuitable for transplantation, as well as the reasons for unsuitability. RESULTS: One hundred fifty patients were considered to be unsuitable for transplantation. During this period, 167 transplants were performed and 737 patients were referred for candidacy. Data were missing on three patients; analysis was performed on the remaining 147. Patients' ages ranged from 15 to 72 years, and 33.3% were female. The most common primary liver disease was hepatitis C (n=53, 35%), followed by alcoholic liver disease (n=35, 24%) and autoimmune liver diseases (n=23, 16%). Medical contraindications constituted 74 patients (49.0%) and the most common reasons for unsuitability were no need of a liver transplant (29 patients [39%]), exclusion due to hepatoma or extrahepatic malignancy (20 patients [27%]) and multisystem failure (12 patients [16%]). Nonmedical contraindications constituted 73 patients. Failure to meet minimal alcohol criteria comprised the largest group (n=39, 53.4%) followed by inadequate social support (n=12, 16.4%), failure to follow up medical assessment (n=10, 13.7%) and drug abuse (n=6, 8.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Although many patients were declined for transplantation, the proportion is relatively small compared with the number of referred patients. Nonmedical reasons, including failure to meet alcohol criteria and lack of social support, remain a significant reason for unsuitability in British Columbia. Community intervention before transplant referral is recommended.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".