Lack of differences in outcomes between 3 immunosuppression protocols in the first year after pediatric liver transplantation: A multicenter study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Advances in immunosuppression have extended patient and graft survival rates after solid organ transplantation; however, this is not free of side effects. Balancing safety and efficacy is of paramount importance, particularly in the pediatric setting. Current literature comparing different protocols is scarce, and decisions are mostly guided by physician preference. We aimed to compare 3 different protocols from 4 different centers to identify differences in outcomes after 1 year of follow-up. A retrospective analysis of the databases of the participating centers was performed. Consecutive patients aged <18 years with a first liver-only transplant and no other underlying congenital or acquired immunodeficiency were included. Patients were classified according to the immunosuppression protocol as follows: group A (prednisone + tacrolimus + basiliximab), group B (prednisone + tacrolimus + basiliximab + antithymocyte globulin), and group C (prednisone + tacrolimus). Differences in survival, frequency of rejection, infections, and other complications were analyzed in the entire group (n = 97) and the group with biliary atresia (n = 48). After 1 year of follow-up, no differences in patient or graft survival were observed when comparing either the entire group (n = 97) or patients with biliary atresia only (n = 48). The frequencies of rejection and episodes of infection were similar. Renal function showed no differences either before or after transplantation or between the groups. Immunosuppression protocols used in this study appeared to be equally safe and effective. This could offer the opportunity to tailor them to the patient's individual characteristics without compromising the outcome.
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".