Survival After Liver Transplantation: An International Comparison Between the United States and the United Kingdom in the Years 2008–2016
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Compared with the United States, risk-adjusted mortality in the United Kingdom has historically been worse in the first 90 d following liver transplantation (LT) and better thereafter. In the last decade, there has been considerable change in the practice of LT internationally, but no contemporary large-scale international comparison of posttransplant outcomes has been conducted. This study aimed to determine disease-specific short- and long-term mortality of LT recipients in the United States and the United Kingdom. METHODS: This retrospective international multicenter cohort study analyzed adult (≥18 y) first-time LT recipients between January 2, 2008, and December 31, 2016, using the Organ Procurement and Transplantation Network/United Network for Organ Sharing and the UK Transplant Registry databases. Time-dependent Cox regression estimated hazard ratios (HRs) comparing disease-specific risk-adjusted mortality in the first 90 d post-LT, between 90 d and 1 y, and between 1 and 5 y. RESULTS: Forty-two thousand eight hundred seventy-four US and 4950 UK LT recipients were included. The main LT indications in the United States and the United Kingdom were hepatocellular carcinoma (25.4% and 24.9%, respectively) and alcohol-related liver disease (20.3% and 27.1%, respectively). There were no differences in mortality during the first 90 d post-LT (reference: United States; HR, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.12). However, between 90 d and 1 y (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.59-0.85) and 1 and 5 y (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.63-0.81]) the United Kingdom had lower mortality. The mortality differences between 1 and 5 y were most marked in hepatocellular carcinoma (HR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.58-0.88) and alcohol-related liver disease patients (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.45-0.89). CONCLUSIONS: Risk-adjusted mortality in the United States and the United Kingdom was similar in the first 90 d post-LT but better in the United Kingdom thereafter. International comparisons of LT may highlight differences in healthcare delivery and help benchmarking by identifying modifiable factors that can facilitate improved global outcomes in LT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 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".