The impact of donor liver allograft fibrosis on patients undergoing liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The utilization of extended criteria liver allografts (ECD) shortens time to transplantation. OBJECTIVE: To characterize the effect of liver allograft fibrosis on graft and patient survival after liver transplantation (LT), with particular attention to fibrosis progression. METHODS: Retrospective database search of donor and recipient liver allograft histology of liver transplants performed between 2007 and 2011. Donor and patient characteristics were analyzed. RESULTS: One hundred and one patients underwent LT with donor liver allografts with early-stage fibrosis (stage 1 fibrosis and stage 2 fibrosis). The level of liver fibrosis did not progress in 40% of the patients tested, and there was a regression of fibrosis in 30%. At a median follow-up of 71 months, of 101 patients transplanted with fibrotic livers, 63 patients (63%) were alive with functioning initial grafts, six patients (6%) were retransplanted, and 35 patients expired. The graft survival rates were 82% and 69% at 1 and 5 years, respectively. Graft survival differences were not found to be statistically significant between the degrees of liver allograft fibrosis: 5-year graft survival (73% for stage 1 fibrosis and 62% for stage 2 fibrosis, P = .24). The entire fibrosis group was further compared with a control group of 208 consecutive primary liver transplant patients with allografts having no fibrosis. The 5-year graft survival was not significantly different between the groups (69% for the fibrosis group vs 75% for the nonfibrosis group, P = .19). Survival was also not statistically different between the groups (5-year survival of 73% for the fibrosis group vs 79% for the nonfibrosis group, P = .2). In patients with HCV, graft survival differences were not found to be statistically significant with the use of early-stage fibrotic livers: 5-year graft survival of 60% for fibrosis group vs 70% for the nonfibrosis group, P = .22). CONCLUSION: This study demonstrates that allografts with early-stage fibrosis achieve acceptable long-term survival after liver transplantation. Given these preliminary results, the use of organs with early-stage fibrosis warrants further studies at a larger scale to validate these results.
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 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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".