The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation
Abstract
Liver allocation policy recently was modified to use the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) for patients with chronic liver disease to stratify potential recipients according to risk for waitlist death. In this study, a retrospective cohort of 760 adult patients with chronic liver disease placed on the liver transplant waitlist between January 1995 and March 2001 and followed up for up to 74 months was studied to assess the ability of the MELD to predict mortality among waitlisted candidates and evaluate the prognostic importance of changes in MELD score over time. Serial MELD scores predicted waitlist mortality significantly better than baseline MELD scores or medical urgency status. Each unit of the 40-point MELD score was associated with a 22% increased risk for waitlist death (P < .001), whereas medical urgency status was not a significant independent predictor. For any given MELD score, the magnitude and direction of change in MELD score during the previous 30 days (ΔMELD) was a significant independent mortality predictor. Patients with MELD score increases greater than 5 points over 30 days had a threefold greater waitlist mortality risk than those for whom MELD scores increased more gradually (P < .0001). We conclude that mortality risk on the liver transplant waitlist is predicted more accurately by serial MELD score determinations than by medical urgency status or single MELD measurements. ΔMELD score over time reflects progression of liver disease and conveys important additional prognostic information that should be considered in the further evolution of national liver allocation policy.
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
Transection of the oesophagus for bleeding oesophageal varices
Pugh, R. N. H., Murray-Lyon, I. M., Dawson, J. L., Pietroni, M. C., & Williams, R. (1973) · Journal of British Surgery · doi:10.1002/bjs.1800600817 · Cited by 7,941
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
The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD)
Kamath, P. S., & Kim, R. W. (2007) · Hepatology · doi:10.1002/hep.21563 · Cited by 1,674
EASL Clinical Practice Guidelines: Liver transplantation
(2016) · Journal of Hepatology · doi:10.1016/j.jhep.2015.10.006 · Cited by 1,082
The Survival Benefit of Liver Transplantation
Merion, R. M., Schaubel, D. E., Dykstra, D. M., Freeman, R. B., Port, F. K., & Wolfe, R. A. (2005) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/j.1600-6143.2004.00703.x · Cited by 872
Self-citationKim, G., Kang, S. H., Kim, M. Y., & Baik, S. K. (2017) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0186990 · Cited by 369
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
- Merion, R. M., Wolfe, R. A., Dykstra, D. M., Leichtman, A. B., Gillespie, B., & Held, P. J.
- Venue
- Liver Transplantation
- Published
- 2003-01
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 12-18
- ISSN
- 1527-6465 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2096439859
- Cited by
- 216
- References
- 2
- FWCI
- 11.21
- 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: Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1053/jlts.2003.50009
- The paper
- Merion, R. M., Wolfe, R. A., Dykstra, D. M., Leichtman, A. B., Gillespie, B., & Held, P. J. (2003). Longitudinal assessment of mortality risk among candidates for liver transplantation. Liver Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1053/jlts.2003.50009
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.