Female donor to male recipient gender discordance results in inferior graft survival: a prospective study of 1,042 liver transplants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The influence of donor-recipient gender mismatch on outcomes after liver transplantation (LT) is controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of donor and recipient gender discordance on graft survival. METHODS: All patients who underwent primary LT from 1994-2012 at a single-center were identified prospectively. Clinico-demographic data were collected at the time of LT and last follow-up. Gender match included both male donor to male recipient (MM) and female donor to female recipient (FF), while gender mismatch included female donor to male recipient (FM) and male donor to female recipient (MF). Survival curves for graft survival were generated using Kaplan-Meier method and compared by log-rank test. Unadjusted and multivariate adjusted COX regression analyzing graft survival at up to 10 years post-transplant was performed. RESULTS: A total of 1,042 subjects fulfilled the criteria. Graft survival in patients receiving a donor-recipient gender match was better than those receiving a gender mismatch (P = 0.047). Female-to-male transplants had the worst graft survival of all combinations (P < 0.001); this difference was maintained in multivariate regression after adjustment for recipient and donor variables (hazards ratio 2.09, P = 0.013). CONCLUSION: Female-to-male liver transplants are associated with a statistically significant poorer graft survival as compared with other donor-recipient gender groups.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".