A Comparative Analysis of Outcome after Heart Transplantation in Patients Aged 60 Years and Older:. The University of Alberta Experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The Registry of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) 2001 Annual Report indicated that the vast majority of heart transplant recipients are between 50 and 64 years of age. However, patient age beyond 60 years may have higher long-term mortality compared to younger patients. The purpose of this study was to compare short- and intermediate-term results including rates of acute rejection, transplant coronary artery disease, infections, malignancy, and mortality in cardiac transplant recipients 60 years or older with those below the age of 60 years. METHODS: We retrospectively analyzed the results of 50 patients aged 60 years and older who underwent heart transplantation at the University of Alberta from January 1990 to December 2000 and compared them with the results of 225 younger patients undergoing heart transplantation in the same time period. RESULTS: The older and younger groups had similar rates for treated acute rejection episodes (20.0% vs. 12.6%), transplant coronary artery disease (4.0% vs. 1.1%), and mortality (10.5% vs. 14.3%), respectively. No differences were noted with regards to quality and quantity of infection or malignancy rates. Five-year actuarial survival between the older and younger patients was also comparable at 89.5% vs.86.9% (p > 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Heart transplantation in patients 60 years of age and older can be performed as successfully as in younger patients (< 60 years) with comparable morbidity and mortality, suggesting that patient age per se should not be an exclusion criterion for heart 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".