Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation 2002: Patient and graft survival and rejection in pediatric recipients of a first liver transplant in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) is a cooperative research network comprising 38 pediatric liver transplant centers in North America. Data from the 1092 patients who have received a first liver transplant since 1995 were analyzed for factors influencing patient survival, graft survival and acute rejection. The 3, 12, 24 and 36 month Kaplan-Meier estimates of patient/graft survival were 90.9/85.5, 86.3/80.2, 84.3/76.0, and 83.8/75.3% respectively. Univariate analysis identified initial diagnosis, type of graft (whole vs. living and cadaveric technical variant), growth failure and continuous hospitalization or ICU admission prior to transplantation as significantly influencing patient and graft survival. Subsequent multivariate analysis identified as risk factors for death: fulminant liver failure (RR = 3.05, p < 0.05), cadaveric technical variant grafts (RR = 1.95, p < 0.05), continuous hospitalization pre-transplant (RR = 1.79, p < 0.05), height deficit >2 s.d. from mean (RR = 3.22, p < 0.05). Risk factors for graft loss included: fulminant liver failure (RR = 2.27, p < 0.05), cadaveric technical variant grafts, (RR = 1.97, p < 0.05). Eleven percent of the 1092 patients were re-transplanted; vascular complications, particularly hepatic artery thrombosis (8.3% overall; 36.3% of graft failures), were responsible for the majority of re-transplants. Infection was the single most important cause of death (40 of 141, 28.4%) and was a contributing cause in 55 (39%), particularly with bacterial or fungal organisms. The cumulative Kaplan-Meier estimates of first rejection at 3, 12, 24 and 36 months were 44.8, 52.9, 59.1, and 60.3%. Initial immunosuppression with tacrolimus reduced the probability of rejection (RR = 0.62, p < 0.05). Eleven percent of rejections were steroid-resistant; chronic rejection led to 7 of 121 (5.8%) re-transplants. The SPLIT registry, in compiling data from a large number of centers, reflects the current outcomes for pediatric liver transplants in North America.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".