Living-Donor Right Hepatectomy with or without Inclusion of Middle Hepatic Vein: Comparison of Morbidity and Outcome in 56 Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Venous congestion of segments V and VIII is observed frequently in living-donor right lobe liver transplants without middle hepatic vein (MHV) drainage, and can be a cause of graft dysfunction and failure. Inclusion of the MHV with the graft is controversial, however, because of the perceived potential for increased donor morbidity. We compared the outcome of living liver donors in whom the MHV was either left intact in the donor (group 1; n = 28) or was removed with the graft (group 2; n = 28). All prospective donors completed an extensive multidisciplinary evaluation to determine suitability for surgery and to ensure that the MHV could be removed safely without compromising venous outflow from the remaining liver. Patient demographics including age, weight, body-mass index, and liver volumetry as determined by computerized tomography were similar in both groups. Operative time in group 2 was significantly shorter than in group 1. There was no difference in estimated blood loss, transfusion requirements, peak serum liver tests, time interval from surgery to complete normalization of liver tests, complications, and length of hospitalization. We conclude that including the MHV with living-donor right lobe grafts can be performed safely in most donors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".