MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4283827678 · doi:10.1503/cjs.025520

Outcomes of liver transplant recipients with high MELD scores: an experience from a Canadian centre

2022· article· en· W4283827678 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
M. Bleszynski, Subin Punnen, Sameer Desai, Trana Hussaini, Vladimir Marquez, Eric M. Yoshida, Saumya Jayakumar, Stéphanie Chartier-Plante, Maja Segedi, Charles H. Scudamore, Stephen W. Chung, Andrzej K. Buczkowski, Peter T. W. Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Surgery · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDialysisLiver transplantationInternal medicineModel for End-Stage Liver DiseaseLiver diseaseTransplantationIntensive care unitRetrospective cohort studySurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<h3>Background:</h3> The frequency with which patients with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores undergo liver transplantation has been increasing. Canadian literature regarding the outcomes of liver transplantation in recipients with high MELD scores is limited. The primary objective of this study was to assess patient and graft survival among recipients with high (&gt; 35) and low (≤ 35) MELD scores. Secondary objectives were to potentially identify independent predictors of graft failure and patient mortality. <h3>Methods:</h3> We conducted a retrospective chart review of patients undergoing liver transplantation at a single Canadian centre from 2012 to 2017. <h3>Results:</h3> A total of 332 patients were included in the study: 280 patients had a MELD score of 35 or lower, and 52 had a MELD score above 35. Patients with high MELD scores had higher rates of pretransplant acute kidney injury and dialysis (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) or intubation (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), intraoperative blood product transfusions (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and post-transplantation acute kidney injury and dialysis (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), as well as longer ICU (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and hospital stays (<i>p</i> = 0.002). One- and 3-year patient survival in recipients with MELD scores of 35 or lower was 93.1% and 84.9% versus 85.0% and 80.0% in recipients with MELD scores above 35 (<i>p</i> = 0.37). One- and 3-year graft survival in recipients with MELD scores of 35 or lower was 91.7% and 90.9% versus 77.2% and 72.8% in recipients with MELD scores above 35 (<i>p</i> &lt; 0.001). Prior liver transplant was an independent predictor of patient mortality, and no independent predictors of graft failure were identified. When MELD was replaced with D-MELD (donor age × recipient MELD), it predicted graft failure but not patient survival. <h3>Conclusion:</h3> No difference in patient mortality was found between MELD groups. Graft survival was significantly lower in recipients with MELD scores above 35. D-MELD may potentially be used as an adjunct in determining risk of graft failure in recipients with high MELD scores.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.109
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.231
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations11
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of SurgerySame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207