ライフサイエンスコーパス: MELD score

1 vious AKI episodes and a high CysC level and MELD score.

2 edictors of 3-month mortality: KPS, age, and MELD score.

3 n, planned extension of hepatectomy, and the MELD score.

4 sed injury severity score, and ICU admission MELD score.

5 ith SVR12 showed stability or improvement in MELD score.

6 SVR12 had favorable short-term impact on MELD score.

7 ath, transplant, or granting of an exception MELD score.

8 magnified following the introduction of the MELD score.

9 wn to improve the predictive accuracy of the MELD score.

10 e survival benefit of transplantation at any MELD score.

11 entration was greater in patients with a low MELD score.

12 nge, 7.0-9.5), and 75% received an exception MELD score.

13 ion longer even when listed at a competitive MELD score.

14 times and outcomes of patients with specific MELD scores.

15 lower survival in patients with the highest MELD scores.

16 rst allocated to recipients with the highest MELD scores.

17 ver quality used for recipients of different MELD scores.

18 ated scenarios and combinations of Lille and MELD scores.

19 arded, transplanted, donor age, or recipient MELD scores.

20 but could decrease life expectancy at higher MELD scores.

21 0.81-0.82 for FIB-4 but 0.61-0.68 for CP and MELD scores.

22 ssignment system the gene signature-MELD (gs-MELD) score.

23 lass, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

24 rdless of Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

25 on their Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores.

26 t CPT class B or C (62.5 [3.08-1246.42]) and MELD scores (1.37 [1.03-1.82]), CPT class B or C at SVR

27 t CPT class B or C (62.5 [3.08-1246.42]) and MELD scores (1.37 [1.03-1.82]), CPT class B or C at SVR

28 liver transplants when they had a lower mean MELD score (13.3 +/- 6.2) than patients without HCC (21.

29 ]; median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, 15 [IQR, 11-18]).

30 s of age; Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score, 20 +/- 8) at 12 centers in North America.

31 steatosis (2.3% vs 8%), and higher recipient MELD score (22 vs 19) versus group 3.

32 vs 9.6 +/- 2.1; P < .0001) as well as higher MELD scores (23 +/- 8 vs 17 +/- 7; P < .0001) and lower

33 For MELD score 25, inpatient mortality rates were 11.2% (LA

34 1.33, P = 0.005), model for endstage liver (MELD) score (26 versus 20, P = 0.02), MELD-sodium (Na) s

35 1), and had significantly greater laboratory MELD scores (28 vs 19, P < 0.001), longer wait-list time

36 aboratory model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (6-14, 15-24, 25-29, 30-34, 35-40), age, and

37 n than the patients without epilepsy (median MELD score 7.9 vs. 11.4), and only one died during the t

38 ents with model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores 9-29, but was significantly increased at ME

39 MELD score (adjusted hazard ratio, 1.13; 95% confidence

40 had lower Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, AFP levels, and neutrophil-lymphocyte rati

41 ncentration was considerably higher than the MELD score alone in 32 patients who died (7%).

42 Baseline Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score alone (cut-off 18) was the best predictor of

43 The gs-MELD score also discriminated between patients with a po

44 dation cohort, CFF score less than 39 Hz and MELD score also were associated with patient survival du

45 pendent predictive factors of mortality were MELD score and E/e' ratio.

46 h OPN, HMGB1, and LBP levels as well as with MELD score and GAHS.

47 Patient MELD score and Glasgow Alcoholic Hepatitis score (GAHS)

48 MELD score and HE at admission and the increase in serum

49 MELD score and MELD score derivates are used to objectif

50 on the waiting list, the combination of the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration was consid

51 Both the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration were signi

52 ignificant interaction was found between the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration, indicatin

53 he preponderance of listed patients with low MELD scores and long wait times.

54 uated the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and its modified versions, which are establi

55 sed on the Model of End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score and the use of exception points for patients

56 characteristics, laboratory data (including MELD scores), and hemodynamic measurements to predict to

57 er function in terms of Child-Pugh class and MELD score, and isn't a useful diagnostic biomarker for

58 diabetes, model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, and need for dialysis.

59 Also, patients transplanted with lower MELD scores appeared to receive lower quality livers.

60 Logistic regression identified the MELD score as strongest positive predictive factor of HE

61 MELD score at any time points can accurately predict the

62 f stay, and higher white blood cell count or MELD score at discharge.

63 The mean (SD) MELD score at ICU admission was 19.3 (9.7).

64 le; 79% white) had CLD and data to determine MELD score at ICU admission.

65 Higher MELD score at inception of the strategy and no pre-resec

66 ] vs 52.4 [9.2] years; P < .001) and sicker (MELD score at listing: median [interquartile range], 16

67 Delta-MELD (D-MELD) was defined as recipient MELD score at LT minus lowest MELD score within the prec

68 list death rates, transplantation rates, and MELD score at removal in all regions.

69 CV genotype 3 [sHR=7.9 (2.5-24.9); p<0.001], MELD score at SVR>10 [sHR=1.37 (1.01-1.86); p=0.043] and

70 -year post-LT hospitalization independent of MELD score at the patient-level, whereas center-specific

71 Median calculated MELD score at time of LT was 8.0 (interquartile range, 7

72 In a multivariate model predicting MELD score at transplant within regions, the percentage

73 strongest independent predictor of regional MELD score at transplant.

74 largely responsible for steadily increasing MELD scores at transplant independent of geography.

75 ons and the effect of exceptions on regional MELD scores at transplant were also analyzed.

76 tcome was Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score at waitlist removal for "too sick." Regressi

77 ly rising model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores at the time of transplant, resulting from h

78 MELD score-based liver transplant allocation was impleme

79 dvent of Model for End-stage Liver Diseases (MELD) score-based allocation criteria, an optimal donor/

80 Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score-based liver transplant allocation was implem

81 l direct-acting antivirals for patients with MELD scores between 10 and 40.

82 ates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores, biomarkers are critically needed to manage

83 MELD score, but not Society of Thoracic Surgeons score,

84 mpared to Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (C-statistic, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.57-0.84), Mayo

85 tudy assesses the influence of skin color on MELD scores calculated using SCr or corrected creatinine

86 Classic MELD score calculations performed superior to KCC in the

87 The MELD score can be used as a prognostic factor in this pa

88 hus, assignment of priority according to the MELD score combined with the serum sodium concentration

89 he use of this biomarker in combination with MELD score could be useful to better predict post-LT ear

90 patients' model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, decreasing costs, and potentially improving

91 tients by Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score demonstrated significantly higher rates of c

92 MELD score and MELD score derivates are used to objectify and grade the

93 der, age, Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, diabetes, alcohol abuse, HIV, or HBV coinfe

94 Of those eventually transplanted, MELD score did not increase in 57%; it increased by 1-3

95 MELD score did not significantly predict wait-list morta

96 In validation cohort 1, the gs-MELD score discriminated patients with poor survival (43

97 that the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score does not accurately predict waitlist mortali

98 , ethnicity, and model for endstage disease (MELD) score, donor risk index, and year of transplantati

99 pients based on the degree of fluctuation in MELD score during the 30-day period prior to LT surgery.

100 nd higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, E-wave transmitral/early diastolic mitral a

101 5 pg/mL survived, whereas patients combining MELD score exceeding 25 and pre-LT BNP concentration exc

102 All patients with MELD score exceeding 25 and pre-LT serum BNP level less

103 significant for patients transplanted at all MELD scores except 6-9.

104 After controlling for MELD score, female gender (2.2 days; p = 0.04), being in

105 -year survival benefit increased with actual MELD score for patients with and without HCC, ranging fr

106 to establish the predictive value using the MELD score for short-term mortality for severe AFOCHB.

107 The median (interquartile) MELD score for the recipients with split liver transplan

108 We aimed to determine if there are MELD scores for ESLD candidates at which their wait-list

109 The mean+/-SD MELD scores for the UMHS (n=211) and INTERMACS (n=324) c

110 Change in MELD score from intensive care unit (ICU) admission to 4

111 of OPN positively correlated with increasing MELD score, GAHS, and LBP levels.

112 MELD score, gender, use of antibiotics other than rifaxi

113 or patients with decompensated cirrhosis and MELD score greater than 13.

114 became the preferred choice for those with a MELD score greater than 30 (incremental value of 0.31 qu

115 efit to accepting DCD SLKT for patients with MELD score greater than 30.

116 nor resections, had portal hypertension or a MELD score greater than 9; and high-risk patients (LD ra

117 or 5 years (44.4%; 12 of 27) than those with MELD scores greater than 15 without MHE (61.5%; 8 of 13)

118 .01), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score greater than 9 (OR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.10-4.58;

119 0.39-0.96); P = 0.034) and a time-of-listing MELD score >/= 25 (hazard ratio: 1.93 (1.15-3.26); P = 0

120 In this setting, a MELD score >/=18 may help clinicians to identify those p

121 m alpha-fetoprotein level >/=455 ng/mL, or a MELD score >/=20 have poor posttransplantation survival.

122 tcomes of death or liver failure (defined as MELD score >/=30).

123 MELD score >/=9 (HR, 3.1; 95% CI, 1.3-7.7; P = .011) and

124 [HR], 8.1; 95% CI, 1.08-61.5; P = .042) and MELD score >/=9 at baseline (HR, 2.9; 95% CI, 1.2-7.2; P

125 of de novo DSA formation, while a calculated MELD score >15 at transplant and recipient age >60 years

126 However, in those with MELD score >=12, survival after TAVR, SAVR, and medical

127 superior to medical therapy in patients with MELD score >=12.

128 At MELD score >=15, the probability of LT was 79% for ML-DR

129 plant recipients from 2002 through 2016 with MELD score >=40 at transplant.

130 livers exported to regional candidates with MELD scores >/=35 who were transplanted at a median MELD

131 001), and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >/= 20 (HR 3.5; P = 0.02).

132 9%) had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >/=35.

133 included Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >10, and absence of neoadjuvant transarteria

134 ents with Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >=10.

135 ates with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores >/=35 before being offered locally to candi

136 cipients (Model for End-Stage Liver Disease [MELD] score >/=35, inpatient or ventilated pre-LT).

137 Risk factors in MELD >=40 included higher MELD scores (>=45), age, sex, race, life support, and en

138 The MELD score has been implied as a prognostic tool in ALF.

139 recipient model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has been correlated with increased posttrans

140 ation, and the Mayo End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has been used in these contexts.

141 se of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has improved the efficiency of allocating de

142 tality by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has improved wait list survival, it is uncle

143 on of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score has led to a reduction in waiting list regis

144 22; 95% confidence interval: 1.11, 1.33) and MELD score (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval:

145 Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (hazard ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence int

146 HCC patients was independently predicted by MELD score, HCC size, HCC number, and alpha-fetoprotein.

147 xcept in patients with very low or very high MELD scores, HCV status has a significant negative impac

148 Among 42 recipients, 24 (57.1%) had MELD scores higher than 20.

149 ipient and donor age, prior transplantation, MELD score, hospitalization at time of OLT, and cold and

150 [CI], 1.00-1.08; P = 0.0499), initial native MELD score (HR, 1.11; 95% CI, 1.05-1.17; P < 0.001), and

151 HIV-infected subjects was pretransplantation MELD score (HR, 1.2; P < .0001).

152 HR, 4.36; 95% CI, 1.67-11.37; P = .003), and MELD score (HR, 1.40; 95% CI, 1.21-1.63; P = .0001) were

153 The MELD score identified left ventricular assist device can

154 6-8) to 4 years in patients with the highest MELD scores (ie, 36-40).

155 from just a few months in patients with low MELD scores (ie, 6-8) to 4 years in patients with the hi

156 point, 2-point, and 3-point increases in the MELD score in 20.2%, 25.7%, and 17.5% of white patients,

157 allocated to the recipient with the highest MELD score in the waiting list.

158 None of the black patients had a MELD score increase greater than 1 point.

159 Each 5-unit MELD score increase was associated with 15.1+/-3.8 units

160 d discrimination for mortality when added to MELD score (integrated discrimination increment 0.067; P

161 patients without HCC who had the same actual MELD score, irrespective of tumor burden or serum level

162 An updated MELD score is associated with a lower relative weight fo

163 fit for transplant patients with the highest MELD scores is indisputable, the medical and economic ef

164 The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score is being weighted to accelerate responders o

165 The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score is predictive of trauma outcomes.

166 aboratory Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (labMELD) scores >=40 (MELD 40+).

167 ents without RAF, RAF recipients had greater MELD scores, length of hospitalization, intraoperative b

168 For those with MELD score less than 10 and met UCSF criteria, 1-year an

169 For patients with MELD score less than 10 and who met Milan criteria, 1-ye

170 nically effective in patients with RA with a MELD score less than 15.

171 T and DDLT were comparable for patients with MELD score less than 25 and donor age less than 50 years

172 When donor age less than 50 years and MELD score less than 25 were matched among 64 patients (

173 d no effect on the survival of patients with MELD scores less than 10 (among patients with CFF scores

174 predicted 20% or greater mortality, whereas MELD scores less than 11 predicted less than 5% mortalit

175 list deaths occurred in patients listed with MELD scores less than 20, and 40% of deaths occurred in

176 patients with model end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores less than 10 and who radiologically met Mil

177 uded cirrhosis-related characteristics (high MELD score, low serum albumin, ascites, encephalopathy),

178 nfections, Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score, low mean arterial pressure (MAP), and non-S

179 ter adjustment for competing risks including MELD score, LSN score (hazard ratio, 1.38; 95% confidenc

180 tory) and to hepatic and renal dysfunctions (MELD score </= or >15 and KDOQI stages, respectively).

181 For patients with MELD score <12, SAVR is a preferred procedure; however,

182 In the subgroup of patients with MELD score <12, the TAVR group had reduced survival comp

183 At MELD score <15, the probability of LT was 72% for ML-DR,

184 Among patients with a MELD score <20, mortality was higher in Gr 2 and Gr 3 co

185 ore being offered locally to candidates with MELD scores <35.

186 dates with Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scores <15, and the survival advantage of LDLT has

187 T (no LDLT group) according to categories of MELD score (<15 or >/= 15) and diagnosis of hepatocellul

188 model combining LSN scores (<3 or >/=3) and MELD scores (<10 or >/=10) was created for predicting li

189 with the highest benefit for those with low MELD scores (<15) listed at multiple regions.

190 omized by Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (</=15 vs >15) and compared with NEV patient

191 d by base Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (<=20, 21-30, >30).

192 ility that allocating livers on the basis of MELD score may have yielded the unintended consequence o

193 carefully individualized in patients with a MELD score more than or equal to 15.

194 nts with a model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score more than 10 before stage-2 were at signific

195 2.96), respectively, relative to a change in MELD score of 0 and adjusted for age, sex, race, Charlso

196 is not uncommon in cirrhotic patients with a MELD score of 12 or less who undergo TIPS placement for

197 , 67.6% [146 of 216 patients]) with baseline MELD score of 12 or less who underwent TIPS placement be

198 .54 and 0.36 quality-adjusted life years for MELD score of 20 or less and MELD score of 21 to 30 with

199 life years for MELD score of 20 or less and MELD score of 21 to 30 with DND versus DCD SLKT, respect

200 erred treatment strategy for patients with a MELD score of 30 or less (incremental value of 0.54 and

201 prioritized candidates had a median waitlist MELD score of 31 (IQR 27-34) when the liver was exported

202 ores >/=35 who were transplanted at a median MELD score of 39 (interquartile range [IQR] 37-40) with

203 207 liver transplant recipients who achieved MELD score of 40 or higher from April 21, 2002, to May 1

204 ation in 38 consecutive patients achieving a MELD score of 40 or higher from January 1, 2006, to Nove

205 were performed, and 169 patients (13%) had a MELD score of 40 or more.

206 ypertension underwent minor resection with a MELD score of 9 or less; intermediate-risk patients (LD

207 he odds of 30-day mortality with a change in MELD score of less than -2, -2 to -1, +1 to +4, and grea

208 nificantly higher than those with a pre-TIPS MELD score of less than 15 (P<0.01).

209 hs (2-109 months) for patients with pre-TIPS MELD score of less than 15.

210 A decrease in MELD score of more than 3 in the 48 hours following ICU

211 median survival for patients with a pre-TIPS MELD score of more than or equal to 15 was 3 months (1-5

212 Fewer patients with MELD scores of 10-15 and MHE survived for 5 years (44.4%

213 Multivariate analysis confirmed MELD scores of 11 or 12 (odds ratio, 3.96 [95% confidenc

214 atients with compensated liver cirrhosis and MELD scores of 11.0-15.5.

215 Only 2 of 12 patients (16.7%) with MELD scores of 15 or higher and MHE survived for 5 years

216 was most discriminatory among patients with MELD scores of 20 or less.

217 patients with Lille scores of 0.50-0.82 and MELD scores of 32 or more.

218 after liver transplantation in patients with MELD scores of 40 or higher but come at high pretranspla

219 patients who underwent transplantation with MELD scores of 40 or higher.

220 t- and long-term outcomes of recipients with MELD scores of 40 or more are primarily determined by di

221 ertaken to analyze outcomes in patients with MELD scores of 40 or more undergoing OLT during the peri

222 sis and a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 10-16 (ISRCTN 10368050).

223 osis with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 12 or less.

224 a median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 17 (interquartile range 13-21), the morta

225 attain a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of 40 or higher before transplantation.

226 n biologic model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score of, 35 for dCLKT and 34 for eCLKT (P = ns).

227 ents with Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores of 40 or higher are at high risk for liver

228 nificantly inferior for patients with a high MELD score or for retransplantations.

229 .97-4.52; P < .001) portal hypertension, and MELD score (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.23-2.13; P < .001).

230 ), higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score (OR = 35.10, p<0.0001 for MELD>30) and young

231 w MELD patients who are underserved by their MELD score over time.

232 MELD) at 3 months and the trend of change in MELD score over time.

233 ients with Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score over 20 points and with spontaneous bacteria

234 ith lower Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores (P < 0.001), and less likely in intensive c

235 When compared with patients with similar MELD scores, patients in the "HCC-MELD-exception" group

236 Across the range of MELD scores, patients without HCC derived a significant

237 ecipients were stratified by donor subgroup, MELD score, pre- versus post-MELD era, and length of tim

238 In the combined cohort, baseline MELD score predicted pretransplantation mortality (hazar

239 The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score predicts higher transplant healthcare utiliz

240 The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score predicts mortality in HIV-negative transplan

241 MELD score, pretransplant septic shock, cardiac risk, an

242 t survival included: recipient age, biologic MELD score, recipient on ventilator, recipient hepatitis

243 he serial Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores recorded in the United Network for Organ Sh

244 SOC microbiota and MELD score remained similar throughout.

245 ory of HE, Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) score, serum sodium, albumin, lactulose use, rifax

246 er, LT for recipients >/=70 years at high LT-MELD scores should be undertaken cautiously.

247 r 2003, median donor age, recipient age, and MELD score significantly increased, whereas moderate-to-

248 ssment of liver dysfunction according to the MELD scoring system provides additional risk information

249 pattern and the MELD score to create the gs-MELD scoring system, which identifies patients with seve

250 ion of the Model for Endstage Liver Disease (MELD) scoring system in 2002 (3.3%, n=143 in 2000 versus

251 er actual Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores than patients without HCC.

252 ts with split liver transplantation had high MELD scores, the results were comparable with those of l

253 ed by the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, the quality of organs used is subject to ph

254 iver transplantation, and nine increased the MELD score to >18).

255 seline liver gene expression pattern and the MELD score to create the gs-MELD scoring system, which i

256 from 4,201 blood samples, the AUROC for the MELD score to predict day 7, 14, 21, and 28 mortality wa

257 Depending on the UNOS region, the threshold MELD score to treat HCV pre-LT varied between 23 and 27

258 Modification of MELD score to update coefficients, change upper and lowe

259 The ability of preoperative MELD scores to predict operative mortality was evaluated

260 Odds ratios, measuring the ability of MELD scores to predict perioperative mortality, were 1.5

261 s and the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores to assign patients to groups with poor surv

262 with high Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores to those listed as Status-1A.

263 Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score transiently worsened postantibiotics, but re

264 Optimized MELD score updated coefficients and implemented new uppe

265 holangitis (PSC) due to the weighting of the MELD score variables.

266 ording to model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score vs ACLF category.

267 The corrected MELD score was >/=3 points higher in 177 (37.7%) patient

268 -day mortality for each 10-point increase in MELD score was 1.63 (95% CI, 1.34-1.98).

269 reas mean recipient age was 55 (13-69); mean MELD score was 12 (6-24).

270 The median MELD score was 14 (interquartile range, 10-20).

271 The median MELD score was 22 (IQR: 17-28).

272 In this study, MELD score was associated with 90-day mortality followin

273 Inclusion of serum sodium (Na) into the MELD score was found to improve its predictive value in

274 MELD score was similar at baseline (9.6 vs. 10.2) and st

275 The classical MELD score was superior to sodium-based modifications an

276 te of pretransplantation mortality, baseline MELD score was the only significant independent predicto

277 ank correlation between existing and updated MELD scores was computed.

278 he median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 11.6 (9.4, 14.0).

279 pre-TIPS model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was 15 (7-33).

280 Median Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was 23 [17, 30] and 90-day mortality was 41%

281 treatment Model for End Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score was a predictor of SVR12 (P = 0.018).

282 djusted on model of end-stage liver disease (MELD) score, was an independent factor of ICU and 180-da

283 Presence of ascites and MELD score were identified as independent risk factors f

284 abuse, medical co-morbidities, and low (<15) MELD scores were barriers to transplantation in this gro

285 Preoperative MELD scores were calculated for subjects enrolled in the

286 The MELD scores were calculated using both creatinine values

287 When MELD scores were dichotomized as >or=17 and <17, risk-ad

288 Laboratory results and MELD scores were pooled to calculate mortality at four t

289 r age and model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score were significantly lower in LDLT (P<0.01).

290 (CTP) and Model for End-stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores were calculated.

291 hanges in model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were derived from the SOLAR-1 and 2 trials.

292 ned by the Model of End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score, which provides donor organs to listed patie

293 on 5, which transplants at relatively higher MELD scores, will experience an increase from 53% to 64%

294 Region 11, which transplants at lower MELD scores, will have an increase in waitlist dropout f

295 ESLD candidates were categorized by MELD score, with a separate category for those with calc

296 A decrease in MELD score within 72 hours of ICU admission is associate

297 d as recipient MELD score at LT minus lowest MELD score within the preceding 30 days.

298 hosis and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score within 3 months of initial liver CT imaging

299 ocated by Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score within each of the country's more than 50 do

300 %) reprioritized candidates had a comparable MELD score (within 3 points of the regional recipient),