Outcomes of patients with acute liver failure not listed for liver transplantation: A cohort analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Acute liver failure (ALF) is a rare condition leading to morbidity and mortality. Liver transplantation (LT) is often required, but patients are not always listed for LT. There is a lack of data regarding outcomes in these patients. Our aim is to describe outcomes of patients with ALF not listed for LT and to compare this with those listed for LT. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of all nonlisted patients with ALF enrolled in the Acute Liver Failure Study Group (ALFSG) registry between 1998 and 2018. The primary outcome was 21-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was done to identify factors associated with 21-day mortality. The comparison was then made with patients with ALF listed for LT. RESULTS: A total of 1672 patients with ALF were not listed for LT. The median age was 41 (IQR: 30-54). Three hundred seventy-one (28.9%) patients were too sick to list. The most common etiology was acetaminophen toxicity (54.8%). Five hundred fifty-eight (35.7%) patients died at 21 days. After adjusting for relevant covariates, King's College Criteria (adjusted odds ratio: 3.17, CI 2.23-4.51), mechanical ventilation (adjusted odds ratio: 1.53, CI: 1.01-2.33), and vasopressors (adjusted odds ratio: 2.10, CI: 1.43-3.08) (p < 0.05 for all) were independently associated with 21-day mortality. Compared to listed patients, nonlisted patients had higher mortality (35.7% vs. 24.3%). Patients deemed not sick enough had greater than 95% survival, while those deemed too sick still had >30% survival. CONCLUSIONS: Despite no LT, the majority of patients were alive at 21 days. Survival was lower in nonlisted patients. Clinicians are more accurate in deeming patients not sick enough to require LT as opposed to deeming patients too sick to survive.
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".