ArticleAnnals of surgical treatment and research2026
Comprehensive comparative analysis of eight predictive indices for survival after deceased donor liver transplantation: a retrospective cohort study.
Article in Annals of surgical treatment and research, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Purpose: Deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) remains constrained by organ shortages, emphasizing the need for accurate predictive models to optimize allocation and improve outcomes. Although multiple indices, such as Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD), MELD-Na, and donor-specific models, exist to predict recipient and graft survival, their comparative performance remains uncertain. Methods: This study compared 8 predictive models (MELD, MELD-Na, Gender-Equity Model for Liver Allocation [GEMA], GEMA-Na, Donor Rejection Organ Procurement Evaluation, Donor Risk Index, Kidney Donor Profile Index [KDPI], and Korean KDPI) in predicting overall and graft survival after DDLT. Data from 328 donor-recipient pairs at Samsung Medical Center (2000-2020) were retrospectively analyzed. Calibration was assessed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test and R Results: MELD-Na demonstrated the highest calibration and discrimination for both overall and graft survival, particularly at short-term follow-up. Recipient-based models (MELD, GEMA) showed satisfactory performance, with MELD closely following MELD-Na in predicting overall survival. In contrast, donor-based indices (KDPI, K-KDPI) exhibited weak predictive power. Integrating recipient and donor parameters improved the overall comprehensiveness of prediction. Conclusion: MELD-Na is the most reliable predictor of short-term survival after DDLT. Donor-specific indices provide valuable insights into organ quality but are limited in survival prediction. Integrating both donor and recipient factors may refine organ allocation and enhance posttransplant outcomes. Further validation across diverse populations and the incorporation of advanced technologies, including machine learning, are warranted to optimize predictive accuracy in liver transplantation.
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.