MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1959349726 · doi:10.5334/jbr-btr.327

A review of the imaging and intervention of liver transplant complications

2010· review· en· W1959349726 on OpenAlexaff
Sinéad H. McEvoy, Helen Stunell, T Ramadan, Nicole Campbell, Sarah Barrett, Tony Geoghegan, W C Torreggiani

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Belgian Society of Radiology · 2010
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationAnastomosisInferior vena cavaRadiologyIntervention (counseling)SurgeryTransplantationVeinPortal veinRadiological weaponArtery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Liver transplantation has become a successful surgical solution to a variety of medical and oncological parenchymal liver diseases. As a result, these patients are being encountered more frequently within diagnostic imaging departments which may be remote from the transplant centre. Radiologists must therefore be proficient in identifying normal post-transplant anatomy which involves the anastomosis of four structures between the donor and recipient, namely the hepatic artery, the main portal vein, the retro-hepatic inferior vena cava and the extra-hepatic bile ducts. A number of potential complications can arise involving any or all of these structures, which can be potentially devastating and lead to graft failure. Radiologists must familiarise themselves with the normal post-operative appearances of liver transplantation and become competent in diagnosing post-transplant complications. Where possible, complications should be treated using interventional radiological techniques, thus avoiding the need for repeat surgical intervention or retransplantation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.542
Threshold uncertainty score0.265

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.027
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.311 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Belgian Society of RadiologySame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207