Epidemiological Profile and Complications of Patients on the Waiting List for Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To identify the epidemiological profile of candidates for liver transplantation and the complications that occurred up to the sixth month of admission to the waiting list. Method: Descriptive-exploratory study conducted in a liver transplant program located in a city in the interior of the state of São Paulo. Candidates aged ≥ 18 of both genders who entered the waiting list between January 1, 2018, and February 28, 2019, made up the study sample, totaling 51 patients. Data analysis was performed using descriptive statistics. Results: The average age of the participants was 52.7 years, most male (60.8%) with incomplete primary education (58.8%). Arterial hypertension was the most frequent comorbidity (51.4%). Most participants had blood type O (58.8%). The average Body Mass Index was 28.8 Kg/m²(overweight). Alcoholic cirrhosis was the most frequent indication for transplantation (31.4%). The average MELD score when joining the waiting list and six months later was 17.9 points. Class B of the Child-Pugh score had the highest frequency at the patient’s admission and the first follow-up. Ascites were the most frequent complication (56.9%), followed by portal hypertension (52.9%) and hepatic encephalopathy (33.3%). At the end of the study, 29 patients remained on the waiting list (56.9%), ten patients were transplanted (19.6%), and 12 died (23.5%).Conclusion: As for the epidemiological profile, the study’s results were in line with other studies, that is, participants with a predominance of male biological sex, most frequent age group of 50 to 59 years and low level of education. Concerning the identified complications, ascites were the most frequent. Among participants who did not remain on the waiting list, the number of deaths was more significant than the number of transplants performed, evidence that differs from other studies.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".