Cirrhotic cardiomyopathy: Implications for liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of patients on a waiting list for liver transplantation have end-stage liver disease. Because of the marked peripheral vasodilatation of end-stage cirrhosis that masks a latent myocardial dysfunction, cardiac abnormalities in the resting state are usually subclinical and escape the attention of physicians. However, when challenged, the systolic and diastolic contractile responses are attenuated. In addition to these contractile abnormalities, morphological changes, such as enlargement or hypertrophy of cardiac chambers, and electrophysiological repolarization changes, including a prolonged QT interval, can be observed. The constellation of these cardiac abnormalities is termed cirrhotic cardiomyopathy. Liver transplantation induces significant cardiovascular stress. Clamping of the inferior vena cava and portal vein, hemorrhage and blood/volume infusion, and ischemia/reperfusion all cause hemodynamic fluctuation. The changing cardiac preload and afterload status increases the cardiac workload, and thus, the previously subclinical ventricular dysfunction may manifest as overt heart failure during the operative and perioperative periods. Cardiac dysfunction contributes to morbidity and mortality associated with liver transplantation. Cardiovascular events are the third leading cause of death in liver recipients. However, because liver transplantation is the only definitive treatment for end-stage liver failure and also appears to reverse cardiac abnormalities, it is important to understand the challenges of the heart in liver transplantation. This review focuses on cardiac status before, during, and after liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation 23 826-835 2017 AASLD.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.002 |
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".