Outcomes of 5-Year Survivors of Pediatric Liver Transplantation: Report on 461 Children From a North American Multicenter Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Although liver transplantation has been the standard of care therapy for life-threatening liver diseases for >20 years, data on the long-term impact of liver transplantation in children have been primarily limited to single-center experiences. The objective of this study was to characterize and evaluate the clinical course of children who have survived >or=5 years after pediatric liver transplantation in multiple centers across North America. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients enrolled in the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation database registry who had undergone liver transplantation at 1 of 45 pediatric centers between 1996 and 2001 and survived >5 years from liver transplantation were identified and their clinical courses retrospectively reviewed. RESULTS: The first graft survival for 461 five-year survivors was 88%, with 55 (12%) and 10 (2%) children undergoing a second and third liver transplantation. At the 5-year anniversary clinic visit, liver function was preserved in the majority with daily use of immunosuppression therapy, including a calcineurin inhibitor and oral prednisone, reported by 97% and 25% of children, respectively. The probability of an episode of acute cellular rejection occurring within 5 years after liver transplantation was 60%. Chronic rejection occurred in 5% patients. Posttransplant lymphoproliferative disease was diagnosed in 6% children. Calculated glomerular filtration rate was <90 mL/minute per 1.73 m2 in 13% of 5-year survivors. Age- and gender-adjusted BMI>95th percentile was noted in 12%, with height below the 10th percentile in 29%. CONCLUSIONS: Children who are 5-year survivors of liver transplantation have good graft function, but chronic medical conditions and posttransplantation complications affect extrahepatic organs. A comprehensive approach to the management of these patients' multiple unique needs requires the expertise and commitment of health care providers both beyond and within transplant centers to further optimize long-term outcomes for pediatric liver transplant recipients.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".