Marijuana Consumption in Liver Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Marijuana is legalized for either medical or recreational use in over half of the states in the United States and in Canada, but many transplant centers will not list patients who are using marijuana. However, the effect of marijuana on transplant outcomes remains unclear. Thus, we performed a retrospective analysis of all adult (≥18 years old) liver transplant patients treated at our center between 2007 and 2017. Patients were grouped according to their marijuana use and tobacco smoking status. We also evaluated tobacco smoking status for the comparative evaluation. Posttransplant morbidity, mortality, and graft survival were evaluated. In total, 316 patients were included: 171 (54%) patients were tobacco smokers (70 current; 101 former), 81 (26%) patients were marijuana smokers (13 current; 68 former), and 64 (20#x0025;) patients were both marijuana and tobacco smokers. A total of 136 (43%) reported never smoking marijuana or tobacco. After adjustment, current tobacco users were over 3 times as likely to die within 5 years compared with never users (hazard ratio [HR], 3.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.63-6.46; P < 0.001), but no difference was seen between current/former and never marijuana users (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.26-1.04; P = 0.06). No significant differences in inpatient respiratory complications, reintubation, or >24-hour intubation was seen. Overall, pretransplant marijuana use, past or current, does not appear to impact liver transplant outcomes, though tobacco smoking remains detrimental.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".