ABO-incompatible liver transplantation for critically ill adult patients
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABO incompatible (ABO-In) liver transplant remains a controversial solution to acute liver failure in adults. Adult liver recipients with acute liver failure or severely decompensated end-stage disease, intubated and/or in the intensive care unit, were grouped as ABO-In (n = 14), ABO-compatible (n = 29, ABO-C) and ABO-identical (n = 65, ABO-Id). ABO-In received quadruple immunosuppression with antibody-depleting induction agents (except two), calcineurin inhibitors, antimetabolites and steroids. No significant difference of patient and graft survivals was observed among ABO-In, ABO-C and ABO-Id: graft survivals were 64%, 62% and 67%, respectively, in 1 year and 56%, 54% and 60%, respectively, in 5 years; patient survivals 86%, 69% and 67%, respectively, in 1 year and 77%, 61% and 62%, respectively, in 5 years. Three ABO-In grafts were lost (one hyper-acute rejection and two hepatic artery thrombosis). Surgical and infectious complications were similarly distributed between groups, except the hepatic artery thrombosis, more frequent in ABO-In (2, 14%) than ABO-I (1, 1.5%, P < 0.05). In contrast to previous studies, no significant difference of patient and graft survivals could be observed among all ABO-compatibility settings. Our results suggest that ABO-incompatible transplants should be viewed as an important therapeutic option in adult patients with acute liver failure awaiting an emergency procedure.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 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 it