Methadone Maintenance Therapy in Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cirrhosis due to chronic infection with hepatitis C virus remains by far the most common reason for liver transplantation in North America. Currently, parenteral use of street drugs is the most common means of acquiring hepatitis C. Methadone maintenance therapy is an accepted form of treatment for chronic opiate (eg, heroin) addiction and, not surprisingly, a significant proportion of methadone-treated patients have chronic hepatitis C. The feasibility of liver transplant candidacy in hepatitis patients who require methadone maintenance therapy is controversial, and some transplant centers require patients to withdraw from such therapy in order for the transplant process to move forward. Thus stable patients with end-stage cirrhosis who are receiving methadone maintenance are left in a most difficult situation: discontinue methadone and accept the side effects of withdrawal with the risk of recidivism to use of street opiates, an absolute contraindication for transplantation, or continue methadone therapy and risk exclusion from the transplant process. The issue of methadone replacement therapy in end-stage cirrhosis and the posttransplant literature on the subject are explored in this paper.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".