Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 393

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Report of a national conference on liver allocation in patients with hepatocellular carcinoma in the United States

Open access
Pomfret, Elizabeth A., Washburn, Kenneth, Wald, Christoph, Nalesnik, Michael A., Douglas, David, Russo, Mark, Roberts, John, Reich, David J., Schwartz, Myron E., Mieles, Luis, Lee, Fred T., Florman, Sander, Yao, Francis, Harper, Ann, Edwards, Erick, Freeman, Richard, Lake, John·2010·Liver Transplantation
DOI 10.1002/lt.21999
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

A national conference was held to better characterize the long-term outcomes of liver transplantation (LT) for patients with hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) and to assess whether it is justified to continue the policy of assigning increased priority for candidates with early-stage HCC on the transplant waiting list in the United States. The objectives of the conference were to address specific HCC issues as they relate to liver allocation, develop a standardized pathology report form for the assessment of the explanted liver, develop more specific imaging criteria for HCC designed to qualify LT candidates for automatic Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) exception points without the need for biopsy, and develop a standardized pretransplant imaging report form for the assessment of patients with liver lesions. At the completion of the meeting, there was agreement that the allocation policy should result in similar risks of removal from the waiting list and similar transplant rates for HCC and non-HCC candidates. In addition, the allocation policy should select HCC candidates so that there are similar posttransplant outcomes for HCC and non-HCC recipients. There was a general consensus for the development of a calculated continuous HCC priority score for ranking HCC candidates on the list that would incorporate the calculated MELD score, alpha-fetoprotein, tumor size, and rate of tumor growth. Only candidates with at least stage T2 tumors would receive additional HCC priority points. Liver Transpl 16:262–278, 2010. © 2009 AASLD.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/lt.21999

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Cited by

See all 393

Metadata

Authors
Pomfret, E. A., Washburn, K., Wald, C., Nalesnik, M. A., Douglas, D., Russo, M., Roberts, J., Reich, D. J., Schwartz, M. E., Mieles, L., Lee, F. T., Florman, S., Yao, F., Harper, A., Edwards, E., Freeman, R., & Lake, J.
Venue
Liver Transplantation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-03
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
262-278
ISSN
1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/lt.21999
OpenAlex
W1990499032
Cited by
393
References
43
FWCI
17.85
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
hybrid

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.