MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4405702617 · doi:10.14309/ajg.0000000000003259

Delisting From Liver Transplant List for Improvement and Recompensation Among Decompensated Patients at One Year

2024· article· en· W4405702617 on OpenAlexaff
Ashwani K. Singal, Deepan Pannerselvam, Juan Pablo Arab, Gene Y. Im, Yong‐Fang Kuo

Bibliographic record

VenueThe American Journal of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLiver Disease and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLiver diseaseHazard ratioInternal medicineHepatitis B virusEtiologyHepatitis C virusCumulative incidenceRetrospective cohort studyGastroenterologyIncidence (geometry)Hepatitis CAutoimmune hepatitisCohortLiver transplantationHepatitis BDiseaseVirusImmunologyTransplantationConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Data are limited regarding etiology-specific trends for delisting and recompensation for liver disease improvement among liver transplantation (LT)-listed candidates in the United States. METHODS AND RESULTS: A retrospective cohort (2002-2022) using United Network of Organ Sharing database examined etiology-specific trends for delisting and recompensation due to liver disease improvement among candidates listed for LT. Of 120,451 listings in adults, 34,444 (2002-2008), 38,296 (2009-2015), 47,711 (2016-2022) were analyzed. A total of 7,196 (6.2%) were delisted for liver disease improvement, with 5.6%, 7.2%, and 5.3% in 3 respective time periods, Armitage trend P < 0.001. Delisting for improvement of liver disease was 8.1%, 5.8%, 4.0%, 3.9%, and 3.1% among listings for alcohol-associated liver disease (ALD n = 41,647), hepatitis C virus infection (HCV n = 38,797), autoimmune (n = 12,131), metabolic-associated steatohepatitis (MASH n = 22,162), hepatitis B virus infection (HBV n = 3,027), and metabolic liver disease (MLD n = 2,687), respectively. One thousand one hundred twenty-two (15.6% or 0.9%) were delisted for improvement at 1 year with cumulative incidence competing for waitlist mortality and receipt of LT of 1.18, 1.17, 0.64, 0.59, 0.50, and 0.34 for ALD, HBV, HCV, MASH, MLD, and autoimmune, respectively. In a fine and gray model, compared with metabolic, subhazard ratio (95% confidence interval) on delisting at 1 year was 3.47 (31.6-3.81) and 3.44 (2.96-3.99), P < 0.001, for ALD and for HBV, respectively. Of 7,196 delisting for improvement, 567 of 5,750 (9.9%) decompensated at listing had recompensation, 19.5% for HBV, 16.6% for MLD and autoimmune, 9.9% ALD, 8.6% for HCV, and 6.9% for MASH. In a logistic regression model among delisted candidates for improved liver disease, HBV vs MASH etiology was associated with recompensation, 2.37 (1.40-4.03), P < 0.001. DISCUSSION: ALD and HBV are most frequent etiologies for delisting due to liver disease improvement. About 10% of delisted patients develop recompensation, with HBV etiology most likely to recompensate. Models and biomarkers are needed to identify these candidates for optimal use of deceased donor livers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.012
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.227 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe American Journal of GastroenterologySame topicLiver Disease and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207