Systematic review: pre‐ and post‐operative prognostic value of cardiopulmonary exercise testing in liver transplant candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is the gold standard for the objective assessment of functional status. In many conditions, CPET outperforms the traditional variables in predicting mortality. AIM: In patients with cirrhosis listed for liver transplantation, our primary aim was to determine the prognostic value of CPET for pre-and post-transplant mortality and, in particular, whether CPET remained predictive after adjustment for liver disease severity. METHODS: A systematic literature review was conducted in databases Medline, Scopus, Embase and PubMed. Where possible, data were pooled for meta-analyses using a DerSimonian and Laird random effects model. RESULTS: A total of seven studies were retrieved, including 1107 patients with a mean MELD of 14.2 (standard deviation 1.6) and peak baseline VO2 of 17.4 mL/kg/min. In all of the studies in which multivariable analysis was performed, CPET variables were independent predictors of pre-transplant mortality (three studies) and post-transplant mortality (four studies). In the three studies where we could aggregate post-transplant mortality data, post-transplant mortality was predicted by AT with a mean difference of 2.0 (95% confidence interval, CI: 0.42-3.59; Z = 2.48, P = 0.01) between survivors and nonsurvivors. The peak VO2 was not significant (0.77 95% CI: -1.36 to 2.90; Z = 0.71, P = 0.48). CONCLUSIONS: Patient's listed for liver transplant have significant functional limitations, with a weighted mean VO2 below the threshold level required for independent living. Although heterogeneity in study designs with respect to timing, CPET variables, and cut-off values precluded the determination of CPET mortality thresholds, the studies support CPET as an objective and independent predictor of pre- and post-transplant mortality.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| 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".