Cognitive Impairment in Liver Transplant Recipients With a History of Cirrhosis: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cognitive impairment is common among patients with cirrhosis and may persist post-transplantation. This systematic review seeks to (1) describe the prevalence of cognitive impairment in liver transplant (LT) recipients with a history of cirrhosis, (2) describe risk factors for this population, and (3) describe associations between post-transplant cognitive impairment and quality outcome measures. Methods: Studies in PubMed, Embase, Scopus, PsychINFO, and the Cochrane Database of Controlled Trials were included through May 2022. Inclusion criteria included (1) population - LT recipient, age ≥18 y, (2) exposure - history of cirrhosis before transplant, and (3) outcome - cognitive impairment after transplant (per validated cognitive testing). Exclusion criteria included (1) wrong study type, (2) abstract-only publication, (3) full-text unavailable, (4) wrong population, (5) wrong exposure, and (6) wrong outcome. The risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and the Appraisal tool for Cross-Sectional Studies. The Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations system was used to assess evidence certainty. Data from individual tests were categorized into six cognitive domains: attention, executive function, working memory, long-term memory, visuospatial, and language. Results: Twenty-four studies were included covering 847 patients. Follow-up ranged from 1 mo to 1.8 y after LT. Studies had a median of 30 (interquartile range 21.5-50.5) patients. The prevalence of cognitive impairment after LT ranged from 0% to 36%. Forty-three unique cognitive tests were used, the most common being the Psychometric Hepatic Encephalopathy Score. The most frequently assessed cognitive domains were attention (10 studies) and executive function (10 studies). Conclusions: The prevalence of cognitive impairment after LT varied across studies depending on cognitive tests utilized and follow-up duration. Attention and executive function were most impacted. Generalizability is limited due to small sample size and heterogeneous methodology. Further studies are needed to examine differences in the prevalence of post-LT cognitive impairment by etiology, risk factors, and ideal cognitive measures.
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) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".