Patent foramen ovale does not have a negative impact on early outcomes in patients undergoing liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To identify the impact of the presence of patent foramen ovale (PFO) in patients undergoing liver transplantation. METHODS: Twenty-seven pre-liver transplant patients who had a PFO (PFO group) were identified and compared with 61 patients without PFO (NoPFO group). Patients were matched according to age, gender and cause of liver disease. The diagnosis of PFO was made by transthoracic echocardiography prior to liver transplantation. Patient baseline characteristics and complications during the early post-transplant period were analyzed. RESULTS: The mean age in the PFO group was 47 ± 14 (range 18-68) yr and 50 ± 11 (range 12-65) yr in the NoPFO group. The PFO group had a mean model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of 15 ± 10 whereas in the NoPFO group the MELD score was 19 ± 10 (p = 0.08). There were non-significant differences in echocardiographic parameters between groups. Duration of mechanical ventilation and the incidence of neurological complications were similar. Thirty-day mortality rate was similar in both groups; only one patient in the NoPFO group died within the first 30 days post-transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: The presence of PFO in patients with end-stage liver disease undergoing liver transplantation does not appear to affect patient outcomes during the peri-operative period.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".