MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4309674152 · doi:10.3138/canlivj-2022-0038

Review of liver transplantation candidacy and outcomes among patients who use cannabis: Is it time for a change in policy?

2022· review· en· W4309674152 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Man Ting Kristina Yau, Trana Hussaini, Eric M. Yoshida

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Liver Journal · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCannabis and Cannabinoid Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCannabisCandidacyMedicineLiver transplantationTransplantationObservational studyInternal medicinePsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Recreational cannabis was legalized in Canada in 2018. A controversial contraindication for liver transplantation is cannabis. There is currently no consensus regarding cannabis use in liver transplant candidates. We aim to investigate liver transplantation candidacy and outcomes among cannabis users. Methods: English peer-reviewed studies on PubMed and Google Scholar were searched on September 9, 2022, using keywords including "cannabis," "liver transplantation," and their synonyms. Titles and abstracts were screened, followed by full texts. Reference lists were reviewed. Studies that investigated liver transplantation candidacy and outcomes among cannabis users were included. Results: The proportion of patients listed for liver transplantation was significantly less among cannabis users than among non-users. Time to listing was longer for cannabis users than non-users. The incidence of delisting was similar. There is an inconsistency between transplant centres regarding transplantation candidacy for cannabis users. While only 14% of Canadian centres had a policy in place and preferred candidates to abstain or decrease cannabis use before transplantation, a third of Canadian centres rejected cannabis users. Observational studies failed to demonstrate significant differences in patient survival between pre-transplantation cannabis users and non-users. However, self-reported mental health ratings were worse in post-transplantation cannabis users than in non-users and former users. Conclusions: Current observational data do not support a link between cannabis use and poor patient survival post-transplantation. However, high-quality prospective studies are needed to better elucidate the impact of cannabis use on liver transplantation outcomes. Liver transplant candidacy should be evaluated through a multidisciplinary and comprehensive approach considering all relevant psychosocial factors.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.040

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0090.013
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Liver JournalSame topicCannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchFrench-language works237,207