2003 Report of the Intestine Transplant Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA: The intestine has been more difficult to transplant than other solid organs. We analyzed registry data to determine the scope and success of intestine transplantation in the current era. METHODS: All known intestinal-transplant programs participated. Patient- and graft-survival estimates were obtained using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and were analyzed with the Wilcoxon statistic. RESULTS: Sixty-one programs provided data on 989 grafts in 923 patients. Four patients were lost to follow-up. The short-gut syndrome was the most common primary indication for transplantation. Sixty-one percent of the recipients were < or =18 years. Proportionally more combined intestinal and liver transplants were performed in this group. More than 80% of all current survivors had stopped parenteral nutrition and resumed normal daily activities. A multivariate analysis of cases within the last 5 years revealed that transplantation of patients waiting at home, recipient age, antibody induction immune suppression, and center experience with at least 10 cases were associated with improved patient survival. One-year graft survival rates of 81% were achieved in patients who were induced with antithymocyte globulin and maintained on tacrolimus. CONCLUSIONS: Transplantation is an effective therapy for the treatment of patients with end-stage intestine failure who cannot tolerate parenteral nutrition. With newer immune suppressive protocols, 1-year graft and patient survival rates approach the results of liver transplantation. Further improvement in survival are expected with early referral since suitable donor organs are scarce and survival rates are better when patients are well enough to wait at home for their transplant.
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 | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.012 | 0.007 |
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".