MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2069684913 · doi:10.1053/jlts.2001.28518

Management of biliary problems after liver transplantation

2001· review· en· W2069684913 on OpenAlexaff
Mike Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2001
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver transplantationAnastomosisSurgeryComplicationPercutaneousStenosisTransplantationOcclusionRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

1. Biliary complications of some type occur in approximately one of every eight liver transplant recipients. Although they are uncommon causes of mortality, they are significant sources of morbidity. 2. Leaks and strictures that occur early after transplantation have technical causes. Late strictures and obstruction are more likely to be complex and have multiple causes, including hepatic artery occlusion, preservation injury, rejection, and recurrent disease. 3. Diagnosis relies on abdominal imaging and cholangiographic studies. Patency of the hepatic artery must be proven when a complication of the donor biliary tree occurs. 4. Management of late complications is largely influenced by the nature and extent of strictures. Percutaneous and endoscopic treatment of anastomotic strictures offers a significant prospect of successful long-term management. 5. Nonsurgical management of more complex hilar and intrahepatic strictures is less successful, and surgical revision or retransplantation may be required for definitive treatment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.029
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.269 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207