Outcome After Intestinal Transplantation From Living Versus Deceased Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To describe the worldwide experience with living donation (LD) in intestinal transplantation (ITx) and compare short-term and long-term outcomes to a propensity-matched cohort of deceased donors. BACKGROUND: ITx is a rare life-saving procedure for patients with complicated intestinal failure (IF). Living donation (LD)-ITx has been performed with success, but no direct comparison with deceased donation (DD) has been performed. The Intestinal Transplant Registry (ITR) was created in 1985 by the Intestinal Transplant Association to capture the worldwide activity and promote center's collaborations. METHODS: Based on the ITR, 4156 ITx were performed between January 1987 and April 2019, of which 76 (1.8%) were LD, including 5 combined liver-ITx, 7 ITx-colon, and 64 isolated ITx. They were matched with 186 DD-ITx for recipient age/sex, weight, region, IF-cause, retransplant, pretransplant status, ABO compatibility, immunosuppression, and transplant date. Primary endpoints were acute rejection and 1-/5-year patient/graft survival. RESULTS: Most LDs were performed in North America (61%), followed by Asia (29%). The mean recipient age was: 22 years; body mass index: 19kg/m²; and female/male ratio: 1/1.4. Volvulus (N=17) and ischemia (N=17) were the most frequent IF-causes. Fifty-two percent of patients were at home at the time of transplant. One-/5-year patient survival for LD and DD was 74.2/49.8% versus 80.3/48.1%, respectively ( P =0.826). One-/5-year graft survival was 60.3/40.6% versus 69.2/36.1%, respectively ( P =0.956). Acute rejection was diagnosed in 47% of LD versus 51% of DD ( P =0.723). CONCLUSION: Worldwide, LD-ITx has been rarely performed. This retrospective matched ITR analysis revealed no difference in rejection and in patient/graft survival between LD and DD-ITx.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".