ArticleHepatobiliary surgery and nutrition2025
Sarcopenia and gender disparities in liver transplant waiting lists: evaluating predictive scores and delisting risks.
Article in Hepatobiliary surgery and nutrition, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) and model for end-stage liver disease-sodium (MELD-Na) scores are the most widely used for prioritizing patients on the liver transplant (LT) waiting list. However, the quality and accuracy of these scores are questionable. Among the most significant limitations we found the disparity in access to transplantation by gender, with excess mortality demonstrated among women on the waiting list. There is also a lack of consideration for sarcopenic status, which negatively impacts those patients. The gender equity model for liver allocation (GEMA) score has recently been shown to be more discriminating, reducing mortality in women. However, this score still does not consider sarcopenic status. The main objectives of this study were to compare the different scores in order to highlight the one with the best discriminatory performance and to demonstrate the disparity in patients' discharge from the list according to their sarcopenic status. Methods: In order to identify patients registered on the LT waiting list between January 1, 2012 and December 31, 2022, at Rennes University Hospital, we contacted the French Biomedicine Agency, which is responsible for prospectively recording registrations. Data about the body composition and complications prior to liver transplantation were collected retrospectively. Results: Of the 1,488 patients on the waiting list, 900 cirrhotic patients were included in the analysis. The majority of patients on the list were men (n=746, 82.9%), with a median age of 61 (interquartile range, 55-65) years and a median MELD score of 16 [10-22]. In our study, the predictive score of 3-month delisting with the highest discriminatory power was the gender equity model for liver allocation-sodium (GEMA-Na) score, with a C-index of 0.7205. Of the 59 (6.6%) patients discharged at 3 months, 19 (32%) were women (P=0.002). Regarding body composition, sarcopenia was found in 36% of patients (n=326), mostly men (n=293, 89.9%). The Cox model showed an interaction between sarcopenia and gender on list exit (P=0.03). Sarcopenia was present in 60% (n=24) of men leaving the list, whereas it was in only 11% (n=2) of women leaving the list at 3 months (P=0.001). Conclusions: In our study, the GEMA-Na score was the most predictive of list deletion. However, this score does not consider sarcopenic status, which is relatively prejudicial to men. Considering sarcopenic status in men therefore seems essential in prioritizing patients on the waiting list, to avoid overlooking new disparities between men and women.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.