MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Simultaneous Liver–Kidney Transplantation: Evaluation to Decision Making

2007· article· en· W2075415104 on OpenAlexaff
Connie L. Davis, Sandy Feng, Randall S. Sung, Florence Wong, Nathan P. Goodrich, L. Melton, K. Rajender Reddy, Mary K. Guidinger, Alan Wilkinson, John R. Lake

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersAmerican Society of TransplantationHealth Resources and Services AdministrationAmerican Society of Transplant SurgeonsAmerican Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineContext (archaeology)KidneyLiver diseaseIntensive care medicineLiver transplantationTransplantationKidney diseaseRenal functionStage (stratigraphy)Kidney transplantationUrologySurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Questions about appropriate allocation of simultaneous liver and kidney transplants (SLK) are being asked because kidney dysfunction in the context of liver failure enhances access to deceased donor organs. There is specific concern that some patients who undergo combined liver and kidney transplantation may have reversible renal failure. There is also concern that liver transplants are placed prematurely in those with end-stage renal disease. Thus to assure allocation of transplants only to those truly in need, the transplant community met in March 2006 to review post-MELD (model for end-stage liver disease) data on the impact of renal function on liver waitlist and transplant outcomes and the results of SLK.

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)0.019
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.019
Threshold uncertainty score0.101

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0190.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations203
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Transplantation→Same topicLiver Disease and Transplantation→French-language works237,207→