A comparison of disease severity and survival rates after liver transplantation in the United Kingdom, Canada, and the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The severity of preoperative liver disease influences the outcome of liver transplantation, is commonly used to determine priority on liver transplant waiting lists, and may differ between countries with different rates of liver disease and organ allocation systems. We compared the relative severity of liver disease in transplant recipients with chronic liver disease in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom and its relation to outcome. Data were obtained from national databases on patients who received transplants in the year 2000. The data included age, gender, diagnosis, the status at the time of transplantation, and indices of chronic liver disease [serum bilirubin and international normalized ratio (INR), and serum creatinine] from which a comparative score [model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score] was calculated. The data revealed marked differences between the three countries. No patient in the United Kingdom was in intensive care before transplantation compared with 19.3% of recipients in the United States and 7.5% in Canada. The median model MELD score of recipients in the United Kingdom was 10.9 compared with 16.1 in the United States and 17 in Canada. The median MELD score of transplant recipients in North America did not vary according to diagnosis, whereas in the United Kingdom, patients with cholestatic liver disease had a lower median MELD score (8.5) than those with alcoholic liver disease (15.7) at the time of transplantation. In conclusion, the disease severity of UK liver transplant recipients varied by diagnosis and was lower than recipients in North America; the 1-year survival rate was, however, similar between the countries.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".