MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2016662258 · doi:10.1097/sla.0b013e3181bc9c6a

Live Donor Liver Transplantation in High MELD Score Recipients

2009· article· en· W2016662258 on OpenAlex
Markus Selzner, Arash Kashfi, Mark S. Cattral, Nazia Selzner, Ian D. McGilvray, Paul D. Greig, Gary Levy, Eberhard L. Renner, David Grant

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Surgery · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineModel for End-Stage Liver DiseaseLiver transplantationCreatinineLiver diseaseTransplantationInternal medicineDonationSurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: In 2002, the New York State Committee on Quality Improvement in Living Liver Donation prohibited live liver donation for potential recipients with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores greater than 25. Despite the paucity of evidence to support this recommendation, many centers in North America remain reluctant to offer living donor (LD) to patients with moderate to high MELD scores. METHODS: We analyzed 271 consecutive adult-to-adult right lobe LD liver transplants performed at our institution between 2002 and 2008 to study the relationship, between recipient MELD scores and the outcome of LD liver transplantation. The recipients were categorized according to their MELD score into a low (Low: <25)and high (Hi: >or=25) MELD group. We compared short-term donor morbidity, graft loss within 30 days, length of hospital stay, biochemical markers of hepatocyte injury and graft function, and 90 day posttransplant complications including infection, rejection, bleeding, and renal failure. Long-term posttransplant outcome was measured by graft and patient survival after 1-, 3-, and 5-years. RESULTS: Donor and recipient characteristics were similar between groups. Donor outcomes were similar in both groups. Peak recipient aspartat aminotransferase, alanine aminotransferase, and length of hospital stay were similar between both groups. The proportional decrease in postoperative INR and creatinine within the first week was greater in the high versus low MELD score group. High MELD score recipients had more frequent postoperative pneumonia (Low: 2.2% vs. Hi: 14%, P = 0.003), while no differences were observed in rates of biliary complications, rejection, renal failure, or overall infections. Recipients with a MELD <25 versus >or=25 had a similar 1-year (Low: 92% vs. Hi: 83%), 3-year (Low: 86% vs. Hi: 80%), and 5-year (Low: 78% vs. Hi: 80%) graft survival after LD liver transplantation (P = 0.51). CONCLUSION: LD liver transplantation can provide excellent graft function and survival rates in high MELD score recipients. Thus, when deceased donor organs are scare, a high MELD score alone should not be an absolute contraindication to living liver donation.

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.

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 score0.082
Threshold uncertainty score0.359

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 head0.147
GPT teacher head0.337
Teacher spread0.190 · 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