Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,256

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 18 of the 18 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Validation of a current definition of early allograft dysfunction in liver transplant recipients and analysis of risk factors

Open access
Olthoff, Kim M., Kulik, Laura, Samstein, Benjamin, Kaminski, Mary, Abecassis, Michael, Emond, Jean, Shaked, Abraham, Christie, Jason D.·2010·Liver Transplantation
DOI 10.1002/lt.22091
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Translational studies in liver transplantation often require an endpoint of graft function or dysfunction beyond graft loss. Prior definitions of early allograft dysfunction (EAD) vary, and none have been validated in a large multicenter population in the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) era. We examined an updated definition of EAD to validate previously used criteria, and correlated this definition with graft and patient outcome. We performed a cohort study of 300 deceased donor liver transplants at 3 U.S. programs. EAD was defined as the presence of one or more of the following previously defined postoperative laboratory analyses reflective of liver injury and function: bilirubin ≥10mg/dL on day 7, international normalized ratio ≥1.6 on day 7, and alanine or aspartate aminotransferases >2000 IU/L within the first 7 days. To assess predictive validity, the EAD definition was tested for association with graft and patient survival. Risk factors for EAD were assessed using multivariable logistic regression. Overall incidence of EAD was 23.2%. Most grafts met the definition with increased bilirubin at day 7 or high levels of aminotransferases. Of recipients meeting the EAD definition, 18.8% died, as opposed to 1.8% of recipients without EAD (relative risk = 10.7 [95% confidence interval: 3.6, 31.9] P < 0.0001). More recipients with EAD lost their grafts (26.1%) than recipients with no EAD (3.5%) (relative risk = 7.4 [95% confidence interval: 3.4, 16.3] P < 0.0001). Donor age and MELD score were significant EAD risk factors in a multivariate model. In summary a simple definition of EAD using objective posttransplant criteria identified a 23% incidence, and was highly associated with graft loss and patient mortality, validating previously published criteria. This definition can be used as an endpoint in translational studies aiming to identify mechanistic pathways leading to a subgroup of liver grafts with clinical expression of suboptimal function. Liver Transpl 16:943-949, 2010. © 2010 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.22091

Cites

18 of 18 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 1,256

Metadata

Authors
Olthoff, K. M., Kulik, L., Samstein, B., Kaminski, M., Abecassis, M., Emond, J., Shaked, A., & Christie, J. D.
Venue
Liver Transplantation
Publisher
Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)
Published
2010-08
Volume
16
Issue
8
Pages
943-949
ISSN
1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1002/lt.22091
OpenAlex
W2031915073
Cited by
1,256
References
18
FWCI
13.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

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.