The significance of pre‐operative coronary interventions on outcome after pancreas transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pancreas transplant candidates are at very high risk of coronary vascular disease. We hypothesized that the requirement for pre-operative coronary intervention (PCI) may be associated with an adverse impact on short- and long-term outcomes. Retrospective analysis of 366 consecutive primary pancreas transplants was undertaken. Outcomes were compared between recipients who had undergone PCI (n = 48) and those who had not (n = 318). In 48% (23/48) of instances, the PCI was initiated by the transplant cardiology evaluation. The recipients undergoing PCI were older than those not undergoing PCI (47.6 yr vs. 41.9 yr, respectively, p < 0.0001). Although not statistically significant, there was a higher rate of post-operative major cardiovascular events (MCVE) in the PCI group (10.4%) compared with those not undergoing PCI (4.7%) (RR [95% CI]: 2.0 [0.90-4.5]; p = 0.17). In the long term, there were no differences in the rate of death with graft function (p = 0.77) or rejection (p = 0.17). There were no statistically significant differences between the groups with respect to patient (p = 0.54), kidney (p = 0.76), or pancreas (p = 0.63) graft survival. PCI is not a risk factor for short-term perioperative events, and long-term transplant outcomes are equivalent to patients not requiring PCI. PCI, by itself, should not be considered a contraindication for pancreas transplantation, but should raise awareness of perioperative risk.
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) | 0.000 | 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".