MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Survival Outcomes After Heart Transplantation

2019· article· en· W2980283066 on OpenAlexaff
Yasbanoo Moayedi, Wida S. Cherikh, Josef Stehlik, Jeffrey J. Teuteberg, Heather J. Ross, Kiran K. Khush

Bibliographic record

VenueCirculation Heart Failure · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsTed Rogers Centre for Heart Research
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLung transplantationHeart transplantationTransplantationPropensity score matchingHeart failureCohortMalignancyEtiologyDiabetes mellitusSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Currently, women represent <25% of heart transplant recipients. Reasons for this female underrepresentation have been attributed to selection and referral bias and potentially poorer outcomes in female recipients. The aim of this study was to compare long-term posttransplant survival between men and women, when matched for recipient and donor characteristics. Methods and Results: Using the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry, we performed descriptive analyses and estimated overall freedom from posttransplant death stratified by sex using Kaplan-Meier survival methods. Male and female recipients were matched according to the Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation and Donor Risk Index score using 1:1 propensity score matching. The study cohort comprised 34 198 heart transplant recipients (76.3% men, 23.7% women) between 2004 and 2014. Compared with men, women were more likely younger (51 [39–59] versus 55 [46–61] years; P <0.001) and had a different distribution of heart failure etiology ( P <0.001). In general, the prevalence of comorbidities was lower in women than in men. Women were less likely to have diabetes mellitus (19.1% versus 26.2%; P <0.001), hypertension (40.7% versus 47.9%; P <0.001), peripheral vascular disease (2.4% versus 3.3%; P =0.002), tobacco use (36.5% versus 52.3%; P <0.001), and prior cardiovascular surgery (38.6% versus 50.7%; P <0.001). Women were more likely to have a history of malignancy (10.5% versus 5.3%; P <0.001), require intravenous inotropes (41.4% versus 37.2%; P <0.001), and were less likely supported by an intra-aortic balloon pump (3.3% versus 3.8%; P =0.03) or durable ventricular assist device (22% versus 31.5%; P <0.001). Transplanted male recipients had a higher Index for Mortality Prediction After Cardiac Transplantation score (5 [2–7] versus 4 [1–6]; P <0.001). When male and female heart transplant recipients were matched for recipient and donor characteristics, there was no significant survival difference ( P =0.57). Conclusions: Overall survival does not differ between men and women after cardiac transplantation. Women who survive to heart transplantation appear to have lower risk features than male recipients but receive hearts from higher risk donors.

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)0.002
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.301
Teacher spread0.283 · 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

Citations91
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCirculation Heart FailureSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207