Liver Transplantation in the Elderly: Indications and Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Liver transplantation improves the survival and quality of life of selected patients with fulminant hepatic failure (FHF), decompensated cirrhosis and hepatocellular carcinoma. Initially, an upper age limit for transplantation of 50–55 years was arbitrarily selected by most transplant programs.1 More recently, with improvements in operative and perioperative care and the introduction of newer immunosuppressive medications, the age of transplant recipients has been extended. There has been a resultant increase in the proportion of liver transplant recipients who are older than 60 years in the U.S., from 10% in 1989 to 19% in 1998.2 In Canada, liver transplant centres do not consider recipient age to be an extremely or very important criterion when listing a patient for transplantation.3 The costs of transplantation are greater for patients older than 60 years, which will have resulting resource implications as the proportion of elderly patients undergoing liver transplantation increases.4 We review the current status of liver transplantation in the elderly, and in particular, the selection of patients for liver transplantation and the available data regarding outcomes. Liver Disease in the Elderly
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".