Cosmesis and Body Image After Adult Right Lobe Living Liver Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known about donors' perception and psychologic impact of the physical changes that occur after (open) living donor hepatectomy. The aim of this study was to examine the body image and scar satisfaction after donor hepatectomy and to measure the relationship to postdonation quality of life. METHODS: Questionnaires measuring body image, cosmesis, and health-related quality of life were administered to 142 adults who underwent right lobe living donor hepatectomy between 2000 and 2007. RESULTS: Liver donors reported a significantly lower body image and lower cosmetic satisfaction with their scar when compared with published data on donors who underwent open nephrectomy. Donors' predonation health concerns and the perception that the recipient was engaging in risky behavior posttransplant were associated with lower postdonation body image scores. In addition, younger age and non-white ethnicity were associated with lower cosmetic scores after donation. Donors with a lower perception of body image and cosmesis reported lower physical and mental health, based on scores on the 36-item Short-Form Health Survey health-related quality of life index, and significantly greater interference in both spousal relationships and their sex life. Younger donors and donors with perioperative complications were also more likely to report decreased confidence after donation. CONCLUSION: There are unique risk factors that predict a decreased perception of body image and cosmesis postdonation that may be useful in the donor evaluation process. Donors identified to be at risk for the development of a low perception of body image and cosmesis may require close follow-up and additional psychiatric services during the donation process.
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) | 0.001 | 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".