MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W157983438 · doi:10.1155/2012/137129

Pregnancy Following Liver Transplantation: Review of Outcomes and Recommendations for Management

2012· review· en· W157983438 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Ken Kuljit S. Parhar, Paul Gibson, Carla S. Coffin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Gastroenterology · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPregnancy and Medication Impact
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePregnancyLiver transplantationImmunosuppressionIntensive care medicineLiver diseaseTransplantationFetusObstetricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liver transplantation is considered to be the treatment of choice for end-stage liver disease and its success has led to an increase in the number of female liver transplant recipients who are of childbearing age. Several key issues that are noted when counselling patients who are considering pregnancy following liver transplantation include the optimal timing of pregnancy, optimal contraception methods and the management of immunosuppression during pregnancy. The present review summarizes the most recent literature so that the clinician may address these issues with their patient and enable them to make informed decisions about pregnancy planning. The authors review recent studies examining maternal and fetal outcomes, and the rates of complications including risk of graft rejection. Subsequently, the authors provide recommendations for counselling prospective mothers and the management of the pregnant liver transplant recipient.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.352
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations50
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of GastroenterologySame topicPregnancy and Medication ImpactFrench-language works237,207