MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144612928 · doi:10.1053/jlts.2003.50105

The utility of marginal donors in liver transplantation

2003· review· en· W2144612928 on OpenAlexfundno aff
R. Busuttil

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity of California, San FranciscoUniversity of California, Los AngelesUniversitätsspital ZürichHokkaido UniversityUniversitat de BarcelonaMcMaster UniversityLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of PittsburghUniversity of Washington
KeywordsMedicineEconomic shortageLiver transplantationTransplantationReperfusion injuryIntensive care medicineSurgeryIschemiaInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The shortage of organs has led centers to expand their criteria for the acceptance of marginal donors. The combination of multiple marginal factors seems to be additive on graft injury. In this review, the utility of various marginal donors in patients requiring liver transplantation will be described, including older donors, steatotic livers, non-heart-beating donors, donors with viral hepatitis, and donors with malignancies. The pathophysiology of the marginal donor will be discussed, along with strategies for minimizing the ischemia reperfusion injury experienced by these organs. Finally, new strategies for improving the function of the marginal/expanded donor liver will be reviewed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.282 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations659
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207