The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The new liver allocation system: Moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy
Abstract
In 1999, the Institute of Medicine suggested that instituting a continuous disease severity score that de-emphasizes waiting time could improve the allocation of cadaveric livers for transplantation. This report describes the development and initial implementation of this new plan. The goal was to develop a continuous disease severity scale that uses objective, readily available variables to predict mortality risk in patients with end-stage liver disease and reduce the emphasis on waiting time. Mechanisms were also developed for inclusion of good transplant candidates who do not have high risk of death but for whom transplantation may be urgent. The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) and Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) scores were selected as the basis for the new allocation policy because of their high degree of accuracy for predicting death in patients having a variety of liver disease etiologies and across a broad spectrum of liver disease severity. Except for the most urgent patients, all patients will be ranked continuously under the new policy by their MELD/PELD score. Waiting time is used only to prioritize patients with identical MELD/PELD scores. Patients who are not well served by the MELD/PELD scores can be prioritized through a regionalized peer review system. This new liver allocation plan is based on more objective, verifiable measures of disease severity with minimal emphasis on waiting time. Application of such risk models provides an evidenced-based approach on which to base further refinements and improve the model.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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
Malinchoc, M., Kamath, P. S., Gordon, F. D., Peine, C. J., Rank, J., & ter Borg, P. C. J. (2000) · Hepatology · doi:10.1053/he.2000.5852 · Cited by 2,893
Cited by
EASL–EORTC Clinical Practice Guidelines: Management of hepatocellular carcinoma
European Association for the Study of the Liver, & European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (2012) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2011.12.001 · Cited by 5,218
Rahbari, N. N., Garden, O. J., Padbury, R., Brooke-Smith, M., Crawford, M., Adam, R., Koch, M., Makuuchi, M., Dematteo, R. P., Christophi, C., et al. (2011) · Surgery · doi:10.1016/j.surg.2010.10.001 · Cited by 2,319
CHOLONGITAS, E., PAPATHEODORIDIS, G. V., VANGELI, M., TERRENI, N., PATCH, D., & BURROUGHS, A. K. (2005) · Alimentary Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1111/j.1365-2036.2005.02691.x · Cited by 420
van Vugt, J. L. A., Levolger, S., de Bruin, R. W. F., van Rosmalen, J., Metselaar, H. J., & IJzermans, J. N. M. (2016) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.13732 · Cited by 361
Improving liver allocation: MELD and PELD
Freeman, R. B., Wiesner, R. H., Roberts, J. P., McDiarmid, S., Dykstra, D. M., & Merion, R. M. (2004) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6135.2004.00403.x · Cited by 270
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Freeman, R. B., Wiesner, R. H., Harper, A., McDiarmid, S. V., Lake, J., Edwards, E., Merion, R., Wolfe, R., Turcotte, J., & Teperman, L.
- Venue
- Liver Transplantation
- Published
- 2002-09
- Volume
- 8
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 851-858
- ISSN
- 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2136041389
- Cited by
- 724
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 24.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The new liver allocation system: Moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/jlts.2002.35927
- The paper
- Freeman, R. B., Wiesner, R. H., Harper, A., McDiarmid, S. V., Lake, J., Edwards, E., Merion, R., Wolfe, R., Turcotte, J., & Teperman, L. (2002). The new liver allocation system: Moving toward evidence-based transplantation policy. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2002.35927
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.