Outcomes of re-referrals of patients with alcohol-associated liver disease, who were previously declined for liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 2018, our program has utilized specific psychosocial criteria and a multidisciplinary approach to assess patients for liver transplant due to alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD), rather than the 6-month abstinence rule alone. If declined based on these criteria, specific recommendations are provided to patients and their providers regarding goals for re-referral to increase the potential for future transplant candidacy. Recommendations include engagement in treatment for alcohol use disorder, serial negative biomarker testing, and maintenance of abstinence from alcohol. In our current study, we evaluate the outcomes of patients with ALD, who were initially declined upon assessment and re-referred to our program. This is a retrospective cohort study that includes 98 patients with ALD, who were previously declined for liver transplantation and were subsequently re-referred for liver transplant assessment between May 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. We assess the outcomes of patients who were re-referred including acceptance for transplantation following a second assessment. Of the 98 patients who were re-referred, 46 (46.9%) fulfilled the recommendations made and proceeded to further medical evaluation. Nine were eventually transplanted; others are listed and are waiting for transplant. The presence of a partner was independently associated with a higher rate of acceptance (OR 0.16, 95% CI: 0.03-0.97, p = 0.05). Most of the patients who did not proceed further (n = 52) were declined again due to ALD contraindications (n = 33, 63.4%), including ongoing drinking and lack of engagement in recommended addiction treatment. Others had medical contraindications (11.2%), clinically improved (6.1%), had adherence issues (5.1%), or lack of adequate support (2%). Patients with ALD previously declined for a liver transplant can be re-referred and successfully accepted for transplantation by fulfilling the recommendations made by the multidisciplinary team. Important factors including ongoing abstinence, engagement in addiction treatment, and social support are key for successful acceptance.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".