Deceased Donor Hyperglycemia and Liver Graft Dysfunction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: Hyperglycemia is common in deceased donors, and provokes numerous adverse events in hepatocytic mitochondria. OBJECTIVE: To determine whether hyperglycemia in deceased donors is associated with graft dysfunction after orthotopic liver transplant. METHODS: Charts on 572 liver transplants performed at the Cleveland Clinic between January 2005 and October 2010 were reviewed. The primary measure was time-weighted averages of donors' glucose measurements. Liver graft dysfunction was defined as (1) primary nonfunction as indicated by death or retransplant or (2) liver graft dysfunction as indicated by an aspartate amino transferase level greater than 2000 U/L or prothrombin time greater than 16 seconds during the first postoperative week. The relationship of interest was estimated by using a multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: The incidence of graft dysfunction was 25%. No significant relationship was found between the range of donor glucose measurements and liver graft dysfunction after donor characteristics were adjusted for (P= .14, Wald test, adjusted odds ratio [95% CI] for liver graft dysfunction corresponding to a relative doubling in time-weighted average for donor glucose of 1.43 [0.89-2.30]). The results thus do not suggest that strict glucose control in donors is likely to improve graft quality.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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".