Living-donor availability improves pediatric patient survival in a large North American center: An intention-to-treat analysis.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Although living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) is increasingly adopted for pediatric LT, there is limited data whether live donation extends benefits to patients from the time of listing. This study investigated the benefits of pediatric LDLT through an intention-to-treat analysis.Methods Pediatric candidates listed between 2001-2023 at a single Canadian center were categorized as pLDLT (with a potential live donor) or pDDLT (without a live donor). The primary endpoint was overall survival from the time of listing. The secondary endpoint involved the waitlist outcomes described by the probabilities of receiving LT or waitlist dropout.Results Among 474 candidates, 219 (46.2%) had potential live donors. The pLDLT group had a higher likelihood of receiving a LT (aHR 1.38, 95%CI:1.16-1.64) and lower risk of dying without a transplant (aHR 0.11, 95%CI:0.01-0.82) compared to the pDDLT group. Survival rates from the time of listing were significantly better in the pLDLT group at 1-(98.6% vs. 87.6%), 5-(96.6% vs. 84.4%), and 10-(96.6% vs. 83.1%) years. Having a potential live donor was linked to a 72% reduction in mortality risk (aHR 0.28, 95%CI:0.12-0.64). Although the number of patients listed annually increased over the study period, the waiting time for deceased donation shortened. This correlated with increased LDLT utilization, suggesting LDLT not only improved outcomes but shortened wait times even for pDDLT patients.Conclusion Having a potential live donor is associated with substantial survival benefit. Pediatric programs offering LDLT can expand the donor pool and decrease the waiting time for DDLT, supporting the argument for making LDLT a standard for pediatric candidates.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".