An Evaluation of Intraoperative Renal Support during Liver Transplantation: A Matched Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intraoperative continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) has been utilized during liver transplantation (LT). Our objective was to assess intraoperative CRRT for metabolic control, postoperative complications and outcomes. METHODS: Retrospective matched cohort study. Cases were LT patients receiving intraoperative CRRT. Controls were matched for demographics and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score. Data were extracted on physiology, course and outcomes. RESULTS: 72 patients were included. Despite effort to match by MELD, cases had higher scores (35.4 vs. 29.9, p = 0.01) compared to controls. Preoperatively, cases received more vasopressors (p = 0.006), and more RRT (94.4 vs. 25.7%, p < 0.0001). There was no difference in complications (p = 0.35) or ICU re-admission rate (p = 0.29). Cases were more likely to require postoperative RRT (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in hospital mortality (p = 0.61). CONCLUSIONS: LT patients selected for intraoperative CRRT more commonly have hemodynamic instability and preoperative acute kidney injury requiring RRT. Despite higher illness severity for cases, there were no differences in complications or mortality.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".