MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Long‐term follow‐up of portal hypertension after liver transplantation in children

2008· article· en· W2000221964 on OpenAlexaff
Simon C. Ling, Andrew Pfeiffer, Yaron Avitzur, Annie Fecteau, David Grant, Vicky L. Ng

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePortal hypertensionAscitesLiver transplantationTransplantationSurgeryRetrospective cohort studyLiver diseaseInternal medicineCirrhosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We aimed to describe the long-term changes in the imaging and clinical features of PHALT in children. A retrospective review was undertaken of consecutive children undergoing their first liver transplant between 1993 and 2003. Details of clinical progress and ultrasound imaging were recorded at one-yr post-transplantation and at last follow-up. Data were extracted on 83 children (median age at transplant 1.7 yr, range one month to 17.5 yr, 44 girls) who underwent 89 transplants. Four of these children died at a mean 5.6 yr (range 3.8-6.9 yr) after transplantation. Of the survivors, follow-up at one yr (n = 83) and at last follow-up (n = 71, median 4.3 yr post-transplant) revealed imaging evidence of splenomegaly in 46% and 44%, ascites in 6% and 4%, and portal systemic collaterals in 12% and 14%, respectively. Gastrointestinal hemorrhage associated with portal hypertension had occurred in no children at one yr and in four (6%) at latest follow-up. Features of portal hypertension on ultrasound scan are common in children before liver transplantation. An important minority of children will suffer clinically significant complications of PHALT during long-term follow-up, caused by both vascular and parenchymal disease.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.878

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.203 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations14
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207