Intensive care management of liver transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Liver transplantation remains the only definitive treatment for advanced liver disease and liver failure. Current allocation schemes utilized for liver transplantation mandate a 'sickest first' approach, thus most liver transplants occur in patients with severe systemic illness. For intensive care providers who care for liver transplant recipients, a foundation of knowledge of technical considerations of orthotopic liver transplantation, basic management considerations, and common complications is essential. This review highlights the authors' approach to intensive care management of the postoperative liver transplant recipient with a review of common issues, which arise in this patient population. RECENT FINDINGS: The number of centers offering liver transplantation continues to increase globally and the number of patients receiving liver transplantation also continues to increase. The number of patients with advanced liver disease far outpaces organ availability and, therefore, patients undergoing liver transplant are sicker at the time of transplant. Outcomes for liver transplant patients continue to improve owing to advancements in surgical technique, immunosuppression management, and intensive care management of liver disease both pretransplant and posttransplant. SUMMARY: Given a global increase in liver transplantation, an increasing number of intensive care professionals are likely to care for this patient population. For these providers, a foundational knowledge of the common complications and key management considerations is essential.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".