Rural residency and the risk of mortality while waiting for liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our liver transplant program services a region that has a prominent rural demographic. The influence of rural residency on liver transplant wait-list mortality has not been previously studied. We hypothesized that residence in a rural setting, by imposing challenges to medical care access, might be associated with inferior survival while waiting for liver transplantation. To test this hypothesis, multivariable time-to-event analysis was performed using Cox proportional hazards and competing risks regression on data from a consecutive five-yr cohort of 159 primary liver transplant candidates, to derive covariate adjusted effect measures for the association between residence in a rural area and wait-list mortality. For the primary analysis, a standardized, census-based, definition was used to assign rural residency status. The Kaplan-Meier estimated 90-d and one-yr wait-list mortality for the cohort was 7.6% (95% CI: 4.2-13.8) and 15.6% (95% CI: 9.4-25.2). The covariate adjusted hazard ratio for the relationship between Rural and Small Town residency status and wait-list mortality was 0.497 (95% CI: 0.171-1.438, p = 0.197) for the Cox regression model and 0.628 (95% CI: 0.224-1.757, p = 0.376) for the competing risk regression model. As defined in this study, candidate residence in a rural setting was not found to be associated with inferior survival while awaiting liver 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".