Technique of Subnormothermic <em>Ex Vivo</em> Liver Perfusion for the Storage, Assessment, and Repair of Marginal Liver Grafts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The success of liver transplantation has resulted in a dramatic organ shortage. In most transplant regions 20-30% of patients on the waiting list for liver transplantation die without receiving an organ transplant or are delisted for disease progression. One strategy to increase the donor pool is the utilization of marginal grafts, such as fatty livers, grafts from older donors, or donation after cardiac death (DCD). The current preservation technique of cold static storage is only poorly tolerated by marginal livers resulting in significant organ damage. In addition, cold static organ storage does not allow graft assessment or repair prior to transplantation. These shortcomings of cold static preservation have triggered an interest in warm perfused organ preservation to reduce cold ischemic injury, assess liver grafts during preservation, and explore the opportunity to repair marginal livers prior to transplantation. The optimal pressure and flow conditions, perfusion temperature, composition of the perfusion solution and the need for an oxygen carrier has been controversial in the past. In spite of promising results in several animal studies, the complexity and the costs have prevented a broader clinical application so far. Recently, with enhanced technology and a better understanding of liver physiology during ex vivo perfusion the outcome of warm liver perfusion has improved and consistently good results can be achieved. This paper will provide information about liver retrieval, storage techniques, and isolated liver perfusion in pigs. We will illustrate a) the requirements to ensure sufficient oxygen supply to the organ, b) technical considerations about the perfusion machine and the perfusion solution, and c) biochemical aspects of isolated organs.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".