ArticleJHLT open2026
Causal nonlinear dose response analysis of donor-recipient predicted heart mass ratio.
Article in JHLT open, 2026. 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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: Size-matching in heart transplantation is performed using Predicted Heart Mass (PHM). It is common to regard a Donor-Recipient PHM Ratio smaller than 0.86 to be undersized. Novel applications of nonlinear models to estimate the dose-response effect of heart size mismatching can better calibrate postoperative risk. Methods: Patients receiving an isolated heart transplant ages 18 and older between 2000 and 2022 were included. Donor-Recipient PHM Ratio was continuously weighted using Tübbicke's entropy balance method. A Cox proportional hazards model was applied to the weighted sample. We fit penalized smoothing splines to estimate the continuous effect size of Donor-Recipient PHM Ratio on survival. Significance of the nonlinear spline terms was assessed and confidence bands for effect size were constructed. Results: A total of 47,942 patients met inclusion criteria. The nonlinear spline terms for Donor-Recipient PHM Ratio were significantly associated with survival (p = 0.004). The effect of Donor-Recipient PHM Ratio was approximately flat between 0.9 and 1.2. Hazard grew approximately linearly below 0.9. At 0.86, the effect was estimated to be HR = 1.05 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.09). At 0.8, the effect was estimated to be HR = 1.13 (95% CI: 1.06, 1.20). Conclusions: Accurately modeling the effect of donor-recipient heart size matching is necessary to inform the decision of whether to accept or reject a donor organ. We found that heart undersizing confers an increased risk of mortality. We fail to find large changes in the slope of the effect at any particular PHM ratio cutoff.
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.