Procedure Costs Associated With Management of Biliary Strictures in Pediatric Liver Transplant Recipients in the Society of Pediatric Liver Transplantation (SPLIT) Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Biliary strictures (BS) remain a challenge in pediatric liver transplant (LT). Achievement of the "Optimal Biliary Outcome" (OBO), stricture resolution without recurrence or surgery is the goal. We analyzed cost associated with different management. METHODS: Society of Pediatric LT (SPLIT) data were matched with Pediatric Health Information System (PHIS) data by dates of birth and transplant, center and sex. SPLIT data were used to identify LT recipients (2011-2016) with BS. Procedure and admissions costs from PHIS were inflation-adjusted to 2022. Sub-analyses evaluated costs associated with achieving OBO. RESULTS: Optimal biliary outcome was achieved in 42% of 77 participants following a median of 4 procedures and 2 inpatient nights compared to a median of 7 procedures and 4 nights in those without OBO (p < 0.001). BS management was lower in participants who achieved OBO versus who did not achieve OBO (p = 0.004). Significant center variation in cost was observed (p < 0.001). Biliary strictures diagnosed earlier post-PLT were associated with lower costs per patient (p = 0.049), while those who underwent surgical biliary revision did not incur higher costs per patient (p = 0.17). In participants who did not achieve OBO and underwent ≥ 6 PTC procedures tended to incur much higher costs compared to those who underwent ≤ 5 PTC procedures, regardless of surgical biliary revision (p = 0.08). CONCLUSIONS: Biliary stricture management costs were highest in patients requiring treatment for recurrence or surgical biliary revision and lowest earlier post-transplant, suggesting that more aggressive management upfront may optimize costs. Future work will explore practice variation and cost-effective strategies to achieve OBO.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".