Donor-recipient age mismatch and outcomes in liver transplantation: A scientific registry of transplant recipients database analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND Old donor allografts in liver transplantation (LT) account for 25% of all allografts, and their utilization is projected to increase with the aging general population. Older allografts are associated with higher rates of all-cause mortality and graft failure; however, there is limited literature exploring the specific phenotypic changes (e.g. , functional status, cause-specific mortality) observed in different donor:recipient age pairs. AIM To investigate differences in functional impairment and cause-specific mortality between different donor:recipient age pairs. METHODS This was a retrospective analysis of LT patients from the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients from 2002 to 2022. Donors were categorized into younger age donors, ≤ 45-years (YAD), middle-aged donors, 46-69-years (MAD), and older age donors, ≥ 70-years (OAD). Recipients were categorized into younger age recipients, ≤ 55-years (YAR) and older age recipients, > 55-years (OAR) age recipients. Multivariate Fine-Gray competing risk and logistic regression analyses identified independent risk factors for cause-specific mortality and improvements in functional status, respectively. RESULTS Overall, 126185 patients were included in the analysis: YAD:YAR (32.7%), YAD:OAR (25.2%), MAD:YAR (17.5%), MAD:OAR (20.7%), OAD:YAR (1.3%), and OAD:OAR (2.7%). Compared to YAD:YAR, OAD pairs had the lowest likelihoods of improved functional status 5 years post-LT (OAD:YAR odds ratio 0.53, 95% confidence interval 0.42-0.67, P < 0.001; OAD:OAR odds ratio 0.67, 95% confidence interval 0.51-0.89, P = 0.006). Donor:recipient age pairs with older donors had higher rates of graft- and infection-related mortality compared to those with younger donors (P < 0.001). Meanwhile, donor:recipient age pairs with older recipients had higher cardioneurovascular- or malignancy-related deaths compared to those with younger recipients (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION Donor:recipient age mismatch was associated with differences in cause-specific mortality and functional status. These insights could potentially inform age-matched organ allocation strategies, though future work is warranted.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".