MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Reducing Pediatric Liver Transplant Complications: A Potential Roadmap for Transplant Quality Improvement Initiatives Within North America

2012· article· en· W1589741859 on OpenAlexaff
Michael J. Englesbe, Beau Kelly, John A. Goss, Annie Fecteau, J. Mitchell, Walter S. Andrews, Greta L. Krapohl, John C. Magee, George Mazariegos, Simon Horslen, John C. Bucuvalas

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationIntensive care medicineQuality managementSurgeryTransplantationOperations management

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Though robust clinical data are available within transplantation, these data are not used for broad-based, multicentered quality improvement initiates. This article describes a targeted quality improvement initiative within the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) Registry. Using standard statistical techniques and clinical expertise to adjust for data and statistical reliability, we identified the pediatric liver transplant centers in North America with the lowest hepatic artery thrombosis rate and biliary complication rates. A survey was completed to establish current practices within the entire SPLIT group. Surgeons from the highest performing centers presented a detailed, technically oriented overview of their current practices. The presentations and discussion that followed were recorded and form the basis of the best practices described herein. We frame this work as a unique six-step approach roadmap that may serve as an efficient and cost effective model for novel broad-based quality improvement initiatives within transplantation.

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)0.042
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.052
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.042
Threshold uncertainty score0.220

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0420.052
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.002
Scholarly communication0.0070.008
Open science0.0050.011
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0100.001

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.289 · 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 designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations70
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207