Extended donor ischemic times and recipient outcome after orthotopic cardiac transplantation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The effect of extended donor ischemic times on mortality following heart transplantation is a matter of considerable debate. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A retrospective study of the 261 consecutive heart transplantations performed at the centre (University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta) between July 1985 and June 1999 was conducted. Patients were divided into the following two groups based on donor ischemic time: 4 h or less and longer than 4 h. Donor and recipient factors were analyzed for their effects on 30-day and 90-day survival. RESULTS: Thirty-day mortality was not significantly greater with prolonged donor ischemic times (13%) than with shorter ischemic times (7%, P=0.14). There was also no significant increase in 90-day mortality with longer ischemic times (16%) than with shorter ischemic times (10%, P=0.27). Actuarial survival (10 years) was similar between the groups (P=0.33). Predictors of 30-day and 90-day mortality were cardiopulmonary bypass time (P<0.001 and P<0.001, respectively) and lower donor weight (P=0.008 and P=0.02, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Longer donor ischemic times were not significantly related to decreased 30-day, 90-day or 10-year actuarial survival.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".