Optimizing Pancreas Transplantation Outcomes in Obese Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background Pancreas transplant recipient obesity has been associated with increased risk of perioperative complications, graft failure, and death. The imperative to maximize organ utility must be balanced against the need to maintain equity of access, including for the increasing number of obese diabetic patients. Methods We compared the outcomes of pancreas transplant recipients with body mass index (BMI) greater than 30 kg/m2 (n=60, mean±SD BMI 32.1±1.7 kg/m2) to those with BMI less than 30 kg/m2 (n=308, mean±SD BMI 24.5±2.7 kg/m2) between 1996 and 2013. Results There were no differences in the pretransplant recipient or donor characteristics apart from BMI. The BMI greater than 30 group were more likely to suffer a rejection episode (43% vs. 29%; P = 0.03). The median time to first rejection was shorter (1 vs. 6 months; P = 0.04), and wound infection was more common in the BMI greater than 30 group (P = 0.03). There was no difference in the rate of patient, pancreas, or kidney graft survival or difference in graft function between the two groups. Conclusion The obese recipients in this study were in the lower range of the obese category. Although there was an increased risk of rejection and wound infection in the obese group, there was no difference in patient or graft survival. This finding, when compared with previous reports, may be related to stringent recipient selection and posttransplant care particularly with respect to cardiovascular disease. This large, single-center, retrospective analysis reports on pancreas allograft recipient outcomes with respect to body mass index (BMI). Recipients with higher BMI have increased incidences of rejection and wound infection, yet have equivalent patient and graft survival, suggesting that with careful selection criteria, obese recipients benefit from pancreas transplantation.
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 | 0.000 | 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".