Pediatric Intestinal Transplant Listing Criteria – A Call for a Change in the New Era of Intestinal Failure Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current listing indications used for intestinal transplantation (IT) were proposed in 2001. We undertook the present single center study to see if these criteria are still valid. The 2001 criteria (advanced cholestasis, loss of >50% central venous catheter (CVC) sites, ≥2 sepsis/year, ultrashort bowel) were compared in children with intestinal failure in old era-1998-2005 (N = 99) to current era-2006-2012 (N = 91) to predict the need for IT using sensitivity, specificity, NPV and PPV. Two 2001 criteria had poorer predictive value in the current era: Advanced cholestasis (PPV 64% old vs. 40% current era; sensitivity 84% vs. 65%, respectively) and ultrashort bowel (PPV 100% old vs. 9% current era; sensitivity 10% vs. 4%, respectively). Three newly proposed criteria had high predictive value: ≥2 ICU admissions (p = 0.0001, OR 23.6, 95% CI 2.7-209.8), persistent bilirubin >75 mmol/L despite lipid strategies (p = 0.0005, OR 24.0, 95% CI 3.2-177.4), and loss of ≥3 CVC sites (p = 0.0003, OR 33.3, 95% CI 18.8-54.0). There was 98% probability of needing IT when two of these new criteria were present. The 2001 IT criteria have limited predictive ability in the current era and should be revised. A multicenter study is required to validate the findings of this single center experience.
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 | 0.011 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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".