Impact of recipient age on outcome of ABO-incompatible living-donor liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transplantation of hepatic grafts from ABO-incompatible donors is controversial because of the risk of hyperacute rejection mediated by preformed anti-ABO antibodies. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the outcome of liver transplants performed with ABO-incompatible living-donor livers and to detect risk factors for development of complications. METHODS: From June 1990 to February 2000, 66 patients, 10 months to 55 years old (median, 2 years old), received 68 ABO-incompatible living-donor liver grafts. The antibody titer and clinical course were followed prospectively during a period ranging from 3 to 11 years. RESULTS: The 5-year patient survival was 59%, 76%, and 80% for ABO-incompatible, ABO-compatible, and ABO-identical grafts, respectively (P<0.01). In patients <1 year old, > or =1 to <8, > or =8 to <16, and and > or =16 years old, 5-year survival was 76%, 68%, 53%, and 22%, respectively. The incidence of intrahepatic biliary complications and hepatic necrosis in ABO-incompatible living-related grafts (18% and 8%, respectively) was significantly (P<0.0001) greater than in ABO-compatible and ABO-identical grafts (both 0.6% and 0%, respectively). Predictive risk factors for increased mortality and morbidity were age greater than 1 year and elevated anti-ABO titers before transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: ABO-incompatible liver transplantation was carried out with relative safety in infants <1 year old but was not satisfactory in children >1 year in long-term follow-up. Patients aged >8 years remain at considerable risk of early fatal outcome because of hepatic necrosis, and new strategies to prevent antibody-mediated rejection are required.
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 | 0.004 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".