Development of a pediatric end-stage liver disease score to predict poor outcome in children awaiting liver transplantation1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A pediatric end-stage liver disease (PELD) score for children with chronic liver disease using easily obtainable, objective, verifiable parameters, would be useful to prioritize children awaiting liver transplantation. METHODS: Data from the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT), a consortium of 29 U.S. and Canadian centers, were used to develop the PELD score. Two pretransplantation endpoints were evaluated: (1) death, n=884; and (2) death or moving to the intensive care unit (ICU), n=779. The analyses were restricted to children with chronic liver disease who were listed for a first transplant. Preliminary analyses of 17 possible factors yielded 6 parameters of interest: age <1 year, total bilirubin, international normalized ratio (INR), albumin, growth failure (height or weight Z score <-2), and calculated glomerular filtration rate. In a univariate Cox regression analysis, age, bilirubin, INR, and albumin were significant (P<0.01) predictors of both endpoints; glomerular filtration rate was not significant for either endpoint; and growth failure was significant for death/ICU but not death alone. In the multivariate analyses, age, bilirubin, and INR were significant for the death endpoint; and bilirubin, INR, growth failure, and albumin were significant for the death/ICU endpoint. From these results, three PELD models were evaluated to predict both outcomes at 3 and 6 months: PELD 1 (age, bilirubin, INR); PELD 2 (bilirubin, INR, albumin, growth failure); and PELD 3 (bilirubin, INR, albumin, growth failure, and age). The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC ROC) was used to compare models. For PELD 3, the most inclusive model, the AUC ROC at 3 months was 0.92 for death and 0.82 for "death-moved to ICU." A comparison of the AUC ROCs for the other models and for the model of end-stage liver disease ([MELD], the adult end-stage liver disease severity score model), none of which performed better than PELD 3, are presented. CONCLUSION: A model using five objective parameters can accurately predict death or death-moved to ICU in children awaiting liver transplantation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".