Retransplantation for recurrent hepatitis C: The argument against
Bibliographic record
Abstract
1. Cirrhosis from chronic hepatitis C is the most common indication for liver grafting today. The course of hepatitis C is accelerated after liver transplantation, and no current therapy reliably prevents or arrests it. 2. It is anticipated that 20% or more of hepatitis C virus-positive transplant recipients will develop allograft cirrhosis, and the only solution will be retransplantation. 3. Results of retransplantation are inferior to primary transplantation. 4. Recipient risk factors that adversely affect mortality after repeated liver grafting include age older than 50 years, renal insufficiency, and severity of hyperbilirubinemia. When present, they reduce survival after retransplantation to approximately 40% or less. 5. Retransplantation on a large scale for recurrent hepatitis C is problematic from the perspectives of outcome, resource utilization, and fairness to candidates awaiting primary grafts.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".