Neurocognitive outcomes at kindergarten entry after liver transplantation at <3 yr of age
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This prospective inception cohort study determines kindergarten-entry neurocognitive abilities and explores their predictors following liver transplantation at age <3 yr. Of 52 children transplanted (1999-2008), 33 (89.2%) of 37 eligible survivors had psychological assessment at age 54.7 (8.4) months: 21 with biliary atresia, seven chronic cholestasis, and five acute liver failure. Neurocognitive scores (mean [s.d.], 100 [15]) as tested by a pediatric-experienced psychologist did not differ in relation to age group at transplant (≤12 months and >12 months): FSIQ, 93.9 (17.1); verbal (VIQ), 95.3 (16.5); performance (PIQ), 94.3 (18.1); and VMI, 90.5 (15.9), with >70% having scores ≥85, average or above. Adverse predictors from the pretransplant, transplant, and post-transplant (30 days) periods using univariate linear regressions for FSIQ were post-transplant use of inotropes, p = 0.029; longer transplant warm ischemia time, p = 0.035; and post-transplant highest serum creatinine, (p = 0.04). For PIQ, they were pretransplant encephalopathy, p = 0.027; post-transplant highest serum creatinine, p = 0.034; and post-transplant inotrope use, p = 0.037. For VMI, they were number of post-transplant infections, p = 0.019; post-transplant highest serum creatinine, p = 0.025; and lower family socioeconomic index, p = 0.039. Changes in care addressing modifiable predictors, including reducing acute post-transplant illness, pretransplant encephalopathy, transplant warm ischemia times, and preserving renal function, may improve neurocognitive outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".