PAs and NPs in liver transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the use and perceptions of physician associates/assistants (PAs) and NPs at liver transplant centers and sought to determine their financial effect. METHODS: Leaders of liver transplant programs performing 25 or more transplants in 2020 were contacted to complete an 11-question survey about the role and effect of PAs and NPs in liver transplant. A single-center retrospective analysis compared length of stay (LOS) and readmission rates for primary liver transplants and simultaneous liver-kidney transplants before and after a dedicated PA team was established. Chi-square and t -test analyses were performed. RESULTS: The survey achieved a 77% response rate, and 98% of institutions reported using PAs and NPs. The single-center study found the mean LOS post-transplant was significantly shorter in the post-PA cohort ( P = .0005). No significant difference was found in 30-day readmission rates. CONCLUSIONS: PAs and NPs are used broadly across the post-liver transplant care continuum. Using LOS as a surrogate financial marker suggests that a dedicated PA and NP team may contribute to cost savings.
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".