Effect of magnification in pediatric liver transplantation: A systematic review and meta‐analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Hepatic artery thrombosis (HAT) represents a devastating and often fatal complication of liver transplantation. Due to the small vessel caliber in pediatric patients, the use of an operating microscope has largely become the standard for hepatic artery reconstruction to reduce the rate of HAT. Recent evidence, however, suggests that loupe magnification for anastomosis may be equally effective. We aimed to determine the effect of magnification on the rate of hepatic artery thrombosis in pediatric liver transplantation. METHODS: A systematic search of the literature was conducted. Thousand eighty-eight unique titles were assessed by two independent reviewers. Studies directly comparing rates of HAT from loupe magnification and operating microscope-assisted anastomoses were eligible for meta-analysis. RESULTS: Among primary transplants, the rate of HAT was 6.0%. Operating microscope anastomosis was associated with a 2.6% decrease in the rate of HAT compared to that of loupe magnification (4.9% and 7.4%, respectively, p < .040). When re-transplants were included, the rate of HAT was 5.8%. Operating microscope anastomosis was associated with a 1.0% decrease in the rate of HAT compared to that of loupe magnification (5.3% and 6.3%, respectively, p < .279). Meta-analysis of eligible studies demonstrated a reduction in the rate of HAT with the use of an operating microscope (p < .03). CONCLUSIONS: Anastomosis under an operating microscope may be associated with decreased rates of HAT in children undergoing primary liver transplantation. Further high-quality studies comparing the two techniques are needed.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Meta-analysis | high |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Review About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | high |
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 | 0.008 | 0.023 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.020 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".