Graft type in pediatric liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: To review the literature on graft type in pediatric liver transplantation, with a specific focus on publications since 2010. RECENT FINDINGS: Due to the limited availability of whole livers for transplantation, the majority of pediatric patients will receive a technical variant graft (live donor, reduced, split). Although the outcomes of these grafts may be inferior to whole organs, the detrimental impact needs to be balanced with the impact of technical variants on improved access and survival to transplantation. Vigilance in detecting and managing posttransplant complications is critical in ensuring the optimal outcome. Infants under 5 kg pose a particular challenge in terms of graft selection with hyperreduced and monosegment grafts proposed for this population. Grafts from donors after cardiac death show promise in expanding the donor pool. However, experience in pediatric patients with these grafts is quite limited, particularly in young children who form the majority of pediatric transplant recipients. Auxiliary transplantation is proposed as a strategy for children presenting with fulminant hepatic failure and for children with metabolic diseases. SUMMARY: The majority of children will receive a technical variant graft, with graft choice being largely determined by organ availability.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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.
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".