KINDERGARTEN-AGE NEUROCOGNITIVE AND FUNCTIONAL OUTCOMES AFTER LIVER TRANSPLANTATION DONE AT AGE <6 YEARS
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract BACKGROUND Mortality after liver transplant has improved, making long-term outcomes increasingly important. OBJECTIVES To describe neurocognitive and functional outcomes after liver transplant done in young children, and determine potentially modifiable risk factors for adverse outcomes. DESIGN/METHODS Between 1999–2014, all <6 years old liver transplant recipients at our center were enrolled in this ethics board approved, longitudinal inception-cohort. Demographic, pre-transplant, transplant, and post-transplant data were prospectively collected. Following informed consent, outcomes were determined by experienced paediatric psychologists using Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence III, Beery-Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual-Motor Integration-V (VMI), and Adaptive Behavior Assessment System-II. Associations with outcomes (Full-Scale intelligence quotient [FSIQ], Performance IQ [PIQ], Verbal IQ [VIQ], VMI and General Adaptive Composite [GAC]) were determined using multiple linear regression. Population norms for each score are mean 100 (SD15). RESULTS 78 liver transplants were performed; 69 patients survived, and all completed follow-up. Outcomes for the 60 patients without metabolic disease are reported. FSIQ, PIQ, and VIQ were 94.5 (17.0), 95.4 (17.8), and 93.7 (17.6). VMI and GAC were 91.6 (16.2) and 89.7 (18.0). Outcomes were shifted to the left of population norms, with the proportion having IQ scores >1 SD (score <85, expected 15.9%) and >2 SD (score <70, expected 2.27%) below population norms being: 23.3% and 8.3%, 25% and 8.3%, and 21.7% and 11.7% respectively. For VMI and GAC these proportions were 25% and 8.3%, and 35% and 13.3%. There were few predictors of outcomes: for FSIQ, grade-IV encephalopathy [effect size -15, 95%CI -29,-1; p=0.03]; PIQ, grade-IV encephalopathy [effect size -16, 95%CI -31, -1; p=0.04], VIQ, grade-IV encephalopathy [effect size -17, 95%CI -31, -4; p=0.01], living-related donor [effect size 10, 95%CI 2, 18; p=0.02], and rejection in first 30d [effect size 9, 95%CI 0.5, 17; p=0.04]; and VMI, grade-IV encephalopathy [effect size -20, 95%CI -33, -7; p=0.002], and PELD at activation [effect size 0.5, 95%CI 0.2, 0.9; p=0.006]. Variables not associated with neurocognitive outcomes included: age at transplant, year of transplant, having any severe complication post-operatively, growth failure, and socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION Neurocognitive and functional outcomes after liver transplant at age <6 years are shifted to the left of population norms. Severe encephalopathy at transplant predicted a poorer outcome. More research is needed to determine risk factors for the over 3X higher prevalence of scores <70 compared to population norms.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".