MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4235418246 · doi:10.1002/lt.25576

Reply

2019· letter· en· W4235418246 on OpenAlexaff
Ivan Linares, Markus Selzner

Bibliographic record

VenueLiver Transplantation · 2019
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePortal vein thrombosisLiver transplantationAscitesThrombosisDissection (medical)SurgeryAbdominal painPerfusionTransplantationRadiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Potential conflict of interest: Nothing to report. To the Editor: We thank Ikegami et al. for the interesting comments on our study on risk factors of de novo portal vein thrombosis (PVT) in adult‐to‐adult living donor liver transplantation (LDLT)1 and for the detailed description of their approach for managing acute grade 4 total PVT. As described in our article, we agree that in the event of acute PVT without portal venous flow after LDLT, the patient should be taken to the operating room to be treated surgically. In our study, we had 2 patients with acute total PVT (grade 2) for whom the thrombosis was resolved with thrombectomy, Fogarty catheter, and anticoagulation. In contrast, we had only 1 patient with grade 4 total PVT, which developed chronically and was detected 133 days after the LDLT with no signs of acute liver injury. In this latter patient, the treatment was not surgical on the basis of the absence of signs of acute injury (elevated hepatic enzymes, abdominal pain, or ascites). In these type of patients, the chronicity of the event leads to the development of collaterals, which maintain an adequate graft perfusion and liver function. The patient from our study with chronic grade 4 total PVT had a functional organ at almost 6 years of follow‐up after the LDLT. We consider that the experience with LDLT in Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan, is very impressive with 475 LDLTs in a period of 12 years. Their procedure included a deep dissection of the splenic, mesenteric, and portal veins at the confluence level and a subsequent splenic venotomy and suction of the thrombus from the portal system followed by the ligation of the splenic vein. This detailed description for the management of acute grade 4 total PVT provides a valuable additional option for the management of these complex patients. In conclusion, we believe that the cases of acute PVT without portal venous flow (grade 2, grade 3 total, and grade 4 total PVT) should definitely be treated surgically, including a possible ligation of the splenic vein in patients with splenectomy to avoid recurrence originating from this vein. In contrast, a medical treatment with anticoagulation (heparin/warfarin) should be considered first in patients with acute partial PVT (grade 1, grade 3 partial, and grade 4 partial PVT) or chronic PVT without signs of acute hepatic injury.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.038
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.088
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.038
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0100.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0880.045

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.238
Teacher spread0.222 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLiver TransplantationSame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207