Health-related quality of life in long-term survivors of paediatric liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term survival after paediatric liver transplantation is now the rule rather than the exception. Improving long-term outcomes after transplantation must consider not only the quantity but also the quality of life years restored. OBJECTIVES: To characterize health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of LT recipients ≥15 years after paediatric LT. METHODS: Recipients of a paediatric LT performed before December 1996 in a single institution with continuous follow-up at either the paediatric or adult partner centre were identified. Patients with severe developmental or neurological impairment were excluded. HRQOL was assessed using the Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory 4.0, the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form-36 version 2 and the Pediatric Liver Transplant Quality of Life Tool. RESULTS: A total of 27 (67% male) subjects (mean age 24.3±6.7 years [median 23.2 years; range 16.6 to 40.3 years]) participated. The median age at transplant was 1.7 years (range 0.5 to 17.0 years). Seven (26%) participants underwent retransplantation. Seventeen (63%) participants were engaged in full-time work/study. Mean Short Form-36 version 2 scores included physical (49.6±11.1) and mental (45.3±12.5) subscale scores. The mean score for the disease-specific quality of life tool for paediatric liver transplant recipients (the Pediatric Liver Transplant Quality of Life Tool) was 64.70±15.2. The physical health of the young adults strongly correlated with level of involvement in work/study (r=0.803; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: The self-reported HRQOL of participants <18 years of age was comparable with a standardized healthy population. In contrast, participants between 18 and 25 years of age had HRQOL scores that were more similar to a group with chronic illness. Participants engaged in full-time work/study experienced enhanced physical health.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".