Cognitive impairment in recipients of liver transplantation and relation to hepatic encephalopathy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Liver transplantation (LT) helped to save the life of end stage liver disease (ESLD) patients; however, there is a debate on the persistence of cognitive impairment. The study aimed to evaluate cognitive functions in patients with ESLD before and after liver transplantation and to assess its relation to hepatic encephalopathy (HE). Thirty recipients 47.6 ± 11 years undergone living donor liver transplantation at the transplantation center of both Ain Shams Center for Organ Transplant and Egypt air organ transplant unit were prospectively assessed by Trail Making Test, Wechsler Memory Scale–Revised, Benton Visual Retention—for the evaluation of cognitive functions before and 3 months after transplantation. Results The mean age of the patients was 47.6 ± 11 years, 17 males and 13 females. Eight out of 30 (26.7%) had past history of hepatic encephalopathy. The study reported significant improvement in the post-operative 3 months scores of Trail Making Test part (A), the digit span forward test, digit span backward test and the correct score difference of the Benton Visual Retention, as p value was (0.02), (0.01) (0.02), and (0.01) respectively, compared to the pre-operative scores. However, there was no difference in the scores of part (B), verbal association I, II, information subtest of WMS. Cognitive performance showed no significant difference between patients with or without history of HE. Conclusions Patients with ESLD have significant cognitive impairment that showed improvement after LT; HE did not correlate with cognitive function. Hence, transplantation has a favorable outcome on the cognitive impairment.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".