MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2889282396 · doi:10.1002/lt.25212

Splenectomy as Flow Modulation Strategy and Risk Factors of De Novo Portal Vein Thrombosis in Adult‐to‐Adult Living Donor Liver Transplantation

2018· article· en· W2889282396 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Linares, Nicolás Goldaracena, Roizar Rosales, Luis de la Maza, Moritz Kaths, Dagmar Kollmann, Juan Echeverri, Nazia Selzner, Stuart A. McCluskey, Gonzalo Sapisochín, Leslie Lilly, Paul D. Greig, Mamatha Bhat, Anand Ghanekar, Mark S. Cattral, Ian D. McGilvray, David Grant, Markus Selzner

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePortal vein thrombosisLiver transplantationPerioperativeThrombosisHazard ratioTransplantationSplenectomySurgeryPortal veinGastroenterologyInternal medicineConfidence intervalSpleen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Portal vein thrombosis (PVT) is a severe complication after liver transplantation that can result in increased morbidity and mortality. Few data are available regarding risk factors, classification, and treatment of PVT after living donor liver transplantation (LDLT). Between January 2004 and November 2014, 421 adult-to-adult LDLTs were performed at our institution, and they were included in the analysis. Perioperative characteristics and outcomes from patients with no-PVT (n = 393) were compared with those with de novo PVT (total portal vein thrombosis [t-PVT]; n = 28). Ten patients had early portal vein thrombosis (e-PVT) occurring within 1 month, and 18 patients had late portal vein thrombosis (l-PVT) appearing later than 1 month after LDLT. Analysis of perioperative variables determined that splenectomy was associated with t-PVT (hazard ratio [HR], 3.55; P = 0.01), e-PVT (HR, 4.96; P = 0.04), and l-PVT (HR, 3.84; P = 0.03). In contrast, donor age was only found as a risk factor for l-PVT (HR, 1.05; P = 0.01). Salvage rate for treatment in e-PVT and l-PVT was 100% and 50%, respectively, without having an early event of rethrombosis. Mortality within 30 days did not show a significant difference between groups (no-PVT, 2% versus e-PVT, 10%; P = 0.15). No significant differences were found regarding 1-year (89% versus 92%), 5-year (79% versus 82%), and 10-year (69% versus 79%) graft survival between the t-PVT and no-PVT groups, respectively (P = 0.24). The 1-year (89% versus 96%), 5-year (82% versus 86%), and 10-year (79% versus 83%) patient survival was similar for the patients in the no-PVT and t-PVT groups, respectively (P = 0.70). No cases of graft loss occurred as a direct consequence of PVT. In conclusion, the early diagnosis and management of PVT after LDLT can lead to acceptable early and longterm results without affecting patient and graft 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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.244 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations19
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207