Post-liver transplantation diabetes mellitus: An association with hepatitis C
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A retrospective study was performed on all liver transplant recipients from British Columbia from 1989 to March 2000 to determine the prevalence and predictive factors of diabetes mellitus (DM) post-liver transplantation. DM was defined as hyperglycemia requiring treatment with insulin or oral hypoglycemic agents. Patient characteristics, cause of liver disease at transplantation, and immunosuppression regimen were considered. Both univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed. Posttransplantation DM (PTDM) occurred in 43 of 177 transplant recipients (24%). Of these, 13 transplant recipients had DM pretransplantation, whereas 30 patients developed de novo PTDM. The majority of patients were treated with insulin (80%). In univariate analysis, transplantation for hepatitis C virus (HCV) liver disease was associated with a greater incidence of PTDM (odds ratio [OR], 3.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.46 to 6.23) and de novo PTDM (OR, 5.20; 95% CI, 2.25 to 11.99). Patients administered tacrolimus had a greater incidence of PTDM (OR, 2.04; 95% CI, 1.01 to 4.13), and there was a trend toward increased PTDM in older patients (mean age, 49 years). Recipient sex, steroid dosage, and acute rejection were not predictive of PTDM. The incidence of graft loss and death rates were similar between the two groups. On logistic regression, HCV was the only independent predictor of PTDM (OR, 4.12; 95% CI, 1.91 to 8.90) and de novo PTDM (OR, 6.02; 95% CI, 2.55 to 14.20). In conclusion, DM post-liver transplantation is a common occurrence and is associated with HCV.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".