An Update on the Survival of the First 50 Face Transplants Worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Importance: Since 2005, a total of 50 face transplants have been reported from 18 centers in 11 countries. The overall survival of the grafts has not yet been established. Objective: To assess the survival of the face transplant grafts and evaluate factors potentially influencing it. Design, Setting, and Participants: Data on all the transplants included in this multicenter cohort study were collected at participating transplant centers for updated nonpublished data, supplemented with literature review for nonparticipating centers. Data from 2005 until September 2023, were included. Data were analyzed from November 11, 2005, through September 18, 2023. Patients included the first 50 patients in the world to have received a face transplant. Exposure: Face transplant graft. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the overall survival of the face transplant graft, defined as either transplant loss or patient death. The secondary outcome was the number of acute rejection episodes per year. Results: The 50 transplants were performed on 39 men (81%) and 9 women (19%) with a median age of 35 (range, 19-68) years at the time of the transplant. The median follow-up time was 8.9 (range, 0.2-16.7) years. During the follow-up, 6 transplants were lost with 2 patients retransplanted. There were 10 patients who died, 2 of whom had lost a transplant. The 5- and 10-year survival of the transplants was 85% (SD, 5%) and 74% (SD, 7%), respectively. The sequential number of the transplant in the world was a significant predictor of survival (hazard ratio, 95; 95% CI, 90-100; P < 05). The median number of acute rejection episodes per year was 1.2 (range, 0-5.3) for the transplants that were lost and 0.7 (range, 0-4.6) for the transplants that survived. No correlation with patient and transplant variables was detected for either the transplant survival or the number of rejection episodes. Conclusions and Relevance: In this study, the overall survival of the face transplants is encouraging. These data suggest that the acceptable long-term survival of face transplants makes them a reconstructive option for extensive facial defects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
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".