Hypophosphatemia after Right Hepatectomy for Living Donor Liver Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hypophosphatemia has been described in patients undergoing right hepatectomy for liver cancer and in living donors for liver transplantation who also received total parenteral nutrition. At the study centre, significant hypophosphatemia (0.36 mmol/L or less) requiring intravenous replacement was seen in two of the first nine living donors for adult-to-adult liver transplantation. To determine the frequency of hypophosphatemia in living donors, the authors obtained phosphate levels on stored serum samples from postoperative days 0, 1, 3 and 7 in all nine patients, none of whom were on total parenteral nutrition. Within the first week, hypophosphatemia developed in 55.6% of patients and phosphate levels returned to normal by day 7 in all nine patients. One patient had normal phosphate levels during the first week, but had profound hypophosphatemia (0.32 mmol/L) on day 14 when he presented with a Staphylococcus aureus infection of a bile collection and significant hypoxemia. The extent of hepatectomy and the rate of liver regeneration, estimated by baseline and postoperative day 7 volumetric computed tomography scans, did not correlate with the development of hypophosphatemia. In conclusion, hypophosphatemia is common in living donors undergoing right hepatectomy and may be associated with complications. All living donors should be monitored for the development of hypophosphatemia during the first two postoperative weeks.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".