The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes
Open accessAbstract
Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD)-based allocation of deceased donor livers allows exceptions for patients whose score may not reflect their true mortality risk. We hypothesized that organ procurement organizations (OPOs) may differ in exception practices, use of exceptions may be increasing over time, and exception patients may be advantaged relative to other patients. We analyzed longitudinal MELD score, exception and outcome in 88 981 adult liver candidates as reported to the United Network for Organ Sharing from 2002 to 2010. Proportion of patients receiving an HCC exception was 0-21.4% at the OPO-level and 11.9-18.8% at the region level; proportion receiving an exception for other conditions was 0.0%-13.1% (OPO-level) and 3.7-9.5 (region-level). Hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) exceptions rose over time (10.5% in 2002 vs. 15.5% in 2008, HR = 1.09 per year, p<0.001) as did other exceptions (7.0% in 2002 vs. 13.5% in 2008, HR = 1.11, p<0.001). In the most recent era of HCC point assignment (since April 2005), both HCC and other exceptions were associated with decreased risk of waitlist mortality compared to nonexception patients with equivalent listing priority (multinomial logistic regression odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 for HCC, OR = 0.43 for other, p<0.001) and increased odds of transplant (OR = 1.65 for HCC, OR = 1.33 for other, p<0.001). Policy advantages patients with MELD exceptions; differing rates of exceptions by OPO may create, or reflect, geographic inequity.
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
Agresti, A. (2002) · Wiley Series in Probability and Statistics · doi:10.1002/0471249688 · Cited by 6,746
Cited by
Hameed, B., Mehta, N., Sapisochin, G., Roberts, J. P., & Yao, F. Y. (2014) · Liver Transplantation · doi:10.1002/lt.23904 · Cited by 279
Bertsimas, D., Kung, J., Trichakis, N., Wang, Y., Hirose, R., & Vagefi, P. A. (2019) · American Journal of Transplantation · doi:10.1111/ajt.15172 · Cited by 141
Metadata
- Authors
- Massie, A. B., Caffo, B., Gentry, S. E., Hall, E. C., Axelrod, D. A., Lentine, K. L., Schnitzler, M. A., Gheorghian, A., Salvalaggio, P. R., & Segev, D. L.
- Venue
- American Journal of Transplantation
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2011-11
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 2362-2371
- ISSN
- 1600-6135 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1533524859
- Cited by
- 200
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 12.96
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03735.x
- The paper
- Massie, A. B., Caffo, B., Gentry, S. E., Hall, E. C., Axelrod, D. A., Lentine, K. L., Schnitzler, M. A., Gheorghian, A., Salvalaggio, P. R., & Segev, D. L. (2011). MELD Exceptions and Rates of Waiting List Outcomes. American Journal of Transplantation. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1600-6143.2011.03735.x
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.