Development and validation of a multivariable prediction model in pediatric liver transplant patients for predicting intensive care unit length of stay
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation is the life-saving treatment for many end-stage pediatric liver diseases. The perioperative course, including surgical and anesthetic factors, have an important influence on the trajectory of this high-risk population. Given the complexity and variability of the immediate postoperative course, there would be utility in identifying risk factors that allow prediction of adverse outcomes and intensive care unit trajectories. AIMS: The aim of this study was to develop and validate a risk prediction model of prolonged intensive care unit length of stay in the pediatric liver transplant population. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of consecutive pediatric isolated liver transplant recipients at a single institution between April 1, 2013 and April 30, 2020. All patients under the age of 18 years receiving a liver transplant were included in the study (n = 186). The primary outcome was intensive care unit length of stay greater than 7 days. RESULTS: Recipient and donor characteristics were used to develop a multivariable logistic regression model. A total of 186 patients were included in the study. Using multivariable logistic regression, we found that age < 12 months (odds ratio 4.02, 95% confidence interval 1.20-13.51, p = .024), metabolic or cholestatic disease (odds ratio 2.66, 95% confidence interval 1.01-7.07, p = .049), 30-day pretransplant hospital admission (odds ratio 8.59, 95% confidence interval 2.27-32.54, p = .002), intraoperative red blood cells transfusion >40 mL/kg (odds ratio 3.32, 95% confidence interval 1.12-9.81, p = .030), posttransplant return to the operating room (odds ratio 11.45, 95% confidence interval 3.04-43.16, p = .004), and major postoperative respiratory event (odds ratio 32.14, 95% confidence interval 3.00-343.90, p < .001) were associated with prolonged intensive care unit length of stay. The model demonstrates a good discriminative ability with an area under the receiver operative curve of 0.888 (95% confidence interval, 0.824-0.951). CONCLUSIONS: We develop and validate a model to predict prolonged intensive care unit length of stay in pediatric liver transplant patients using risk factors from all phases of the perioperative period.
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".