168 Pancreas transplant outcomes after allocation though the NHSBT pancreas fast-track scheme (FTS)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The fast-track pancreas scheme (FTS) was brought in to improve pancreas utilisation. It created a scheme for the allocation of pancreas grafts not yet allocated at the time retrieval commenced. There are no previous reports of pancreas allocation using such a scheme. This study compares the outcomes of pancreas grafts allocated via the FTS versus those allocated before retrieval. Methods Data were collected on 1,297 pancreas donors offered through the FTS between 1/12/2010-31/03/2023from the UK Transplant Registry. Donor and recipient characteristics were compared, and graft and patient survival analyses conducted using Kaplan Meier plots. Results Pancreases offered through the FTS were more likely to be from older, heavier, taller, male, and donation after circulatory death (DCD) donors, with all differences statistically significant (p<0.0001). Recipients of FTS grafts tended to be older (p=0.0074). 166 simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplants were performed from the organs offered. No significant differences were found in graft survival at 1 year (FTS 92.4%, no-FTS 87.6%, p=0.104), 3 years (FTS 83.6%, no-FTS 82.9%, p=0.460), and 5 years (FTS 80.9%, no-FTS 79.4%, p=0.417). Patient survival was comparable between groups at 1 year (FTS 98.3%, no-FTS 95.6%, p=0.185), 3 years (FTS 94.3%, no-FTS 91.5%, p=0.287), and 5 years (FTS 87.7%, no FTS 86.6%, p=0.519). Conclusion Graft and patient survival rates are similar between those receiving fast-tracked pancreases and those receiving pre-allocated pancreases. This study confirms that despite the perception FTS grafts may be more high risk, pancreas transplant outcomes are comparable with no impact on overall outcomes.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".