Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 264

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function1

Desai, Niraj M., Mange, Kevin C., Crawford, Michael D., Abt, Peter L., Frank, Adam M., Markmann, Joseph W., Velidedeoglu, Ergun, Chapman, William C., Markmann, James F.·2004·Transplantation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) has been found to accurately predict pretransplant mortality and is a valuable system for ranking patients in greatest need of liver transplantation. It is unknown whether a higher MELD score also predicts decreased posttransplant survival. METHODS: We examined a cohort of patients from the United Network for Organ Sharing (UNOS) database for whom the critical pretransplant recipient values needed to calculate the MELD score were available (international normalized ratio of prothrombin time, total bilirubin, and creatinine). In these 2,565 patients, we analyzed whether the MELD score predicted graft and patient survival and length of posttransplant hospitalization. RESULTS: In contrast with its ability to predict survival in patients with chronic liver disease awaiting liver transplant, the MELD score was found to be poor at predicting posttransplant outcome except for patients with the highest 20% of MELD scores. We developed a model with four variables not included in MELD that had greater ability to predict 3-month posttransplant patient survival, with a c-statistic of 0.65, compared with 0.54 for the pretransplant MELD score. These pretransplant variables were recipient age, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and retransplantation. Recipients with any two of the three latter variables showed a markedly diminished posttransplant survival rate. CONCLUSIONS: The MELD score is a relatively poor predictor of posttransplant outcome. In contrast, a model based on four pretransplant variables (recipient age, mechanical ventilation, dialysis, and retransplantation) had a better ability to predict outcome. Our results support the use of MELD for liver allocation and indicate that statistical modeling, such as reported in this article, can be used to identify futile cases in which expected outcome is too poor to justify transplantation.

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 · 10.1097/01.tp.0000101009.91516.fc

Cites

1 of 1 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

Show all 1 references

Cited by

See all 264

Metadata

Authors
Desai, N. M., Mange, K. C., Crawford, M. D., Abt, P. L., Frank, A. M., Markmann, J. W., Velidedeoglu, E., Chapman, W. C., & Markmann, J. F.
Venue
Transplantation
Published
2004-01-15
Volume
77
Issue
1
Pages
99-106
ISSN
0041-1337 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2077332968
Cited by
264
References
1
FWCI
18.78
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: Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function1. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1097/01.tp.0000101009.91516.fc
The paper
Desai, N. M., Mange, K. C., Crawford, M. D., Abt, P. L., Frank, A. M., Markmann, J. W., Velidedeoglu, E., Chapman, W. C., & Markmann, J. F. (2004). Predicting outcome after liver transplantation: utility of the model for end-stage liver disease and a newly derived discrimination function1. Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1097/01.tp.0000101009.91516.fc

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.