Impact of Graft Type on Outcome in Pediatric Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Objective: To examine the outcome of technical variant liver transplant techniques relative to whole organ liver transplantation in pediatric liver transplant recipients. Background: Technical variant liver transplant techniques comprising split, reduced, and live-donor liver transplantation evolved to address the need for timely and size appropriate grafts for pediatric recipients. Methods: Analysis of data from the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) registry, a multicenter database of 44 North American pediatric liver transplant programs. The outcome (morbidity and mortality) of each of the technical variants were compared with that of whole organ recipients. Results: Data were available on 2192 transplant recipients (1183 whole, 261 split, 388 reduced, and 360 live donor). Recipients of all technical variant graft type were significantly younger than whole organ recipients, but on average spent 2.3 months less on the waiting list. Thirty-day post-transplant morbidity was increased for each type of technical variant relative to whole organ (45.1% whole, 66.7% split, 65.5% reduced, 51.9% live-donor). Biliary complications (30 day: 7.5% whole, 18.8% split, 16% reduced, 17.5% live-donor) and portal vein thrombosis (30 day: 3.6% whole, 8% split, 8% reduced, 7.5% live-donor) were more common in all technical variant types. Graft type was an independent predictor of graft loss (death or retransplantation) in a multivariate analysis. Split and reduced (relative risk = 1.74 and 1.77, respectively) grafts had a worse outcome when compared with whole organ recipients. Conclusions: Technical variant techniques expand the pediatric donor pool and reduce time from listing to transplant, but they are associated with increased morbidity and mortality. Technical variant liver transplantation comprising reduced, split, and live-donor grafts evolved to address the need for size appropriate organs for pediatric liver recipients. This study will examine the outcome and morbidity of the technical variant techniques relative to whole organ transplants in the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) database.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".