ライフサイエンスコーパス: MELD score

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

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

3 magnified following the introduction of the MELD score.

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

5 e survival benefit of transplantation at any MELD score.

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

7 rvival cannot be accurately predicted by the MELD score.

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

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

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

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

12 ith SVR12 showed stability or improvement in MELD score.

13 lower survival in patients with the highest MELD scores.

14 rst allocated to recipients with the highest MELD scores.

15 ver quality used for recipients of different MELD scores.

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

17 ival in recent years among patients with low MELD scores.

18 but could decrease life expectancy at higher MELD scores.

19 Severity of POPH correlates poorly with MELD scores.

20 0.81-0.82 for FIB-4 but 0.61-0.68 for CP and MELD scores.

21 times and outcomes of patients with specific MELD scores.

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

23 ed on the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score.

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

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

26 ing's College criteria (0.623, P = .018) and MELD scores (0.707, P = .0503).

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

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

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

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

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

32 1.33, P = 0.005), model for endstage liver (MELD) score (26 versus 20, P = 0.02), MELD-sodium (Na) s

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

34 recipients at high-volume centers had lower MELD scores (35.1% with MELD scores < or =18 vs. 22.7% a

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

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

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

38 MELD score, age, and American Society of Anesthesiologis

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

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

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

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

43 By multivariable analysis, only MELD score, American Society of Anesthesiologists class,

44 After adjustment for MELD score and center, there was a linear increase in th

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

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

47 The relationship between MELD score and mortality persisted throughout the 20-yea

48 MELD score and Na, at listing, were significant (both, P

49 This population-wide study shows that the MELD score and the serum sodium concentration are import

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 The MELD scores and waiting time of liver transplant recipie

55 MELD scores and waiting times of liver transplant recipi

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

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

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

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

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

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

62 The MELD score, as an objective scale of disease severity in

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

71 strongest independent predictor of regional MELD score at transplant.

72 To determine whether the MELD score at transplantation and waiting time of liver

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

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

75 Higher MELD scores at transplant were generally associated with

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

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

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

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

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

81 Classic MELD score calculations performed superior to KCC in the

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

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

84 -Pugh and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score correlated significantly but weakly with the

85 Model for end stage liver disease (MELD) scores correlated poorly with MPAP and PVR.

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

87 MELD score, CTP score, Charlson Index of Comorbidity, Am

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

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

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

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

92 MELD score did not significantly predict wait-list morta

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

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

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

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

97 5 pg/mL survived, whereas patients combining MELD score exceeding 25 and pre-LT BNP concentration exc

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

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

100 licability of live donor transplantation and MELD score exceptions for this aggressive protocol.

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

102 The mean MELD score for patients dying (24.8, 20.4-29.3) was sign

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

104 The mean admission MELD score for the patients who died (23.3, 95% confiden

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

114 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

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

116 rs of poor posttransplantation survival were MELD score >/=20 (hazard ratio, 1.61; 95% CI: 1.3-2.1) a

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

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

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

120 [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

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

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

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

124 9%) had a Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score >/=35.

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

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

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

128 from 5.7% (MELD score, <8) to more than 50% (MELD score, >20).

129 However, the MELD score has also been shown to predict survival in pa

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

131 The major use of the MELD score has been in allocation of organs for liver tr

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

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

134 The Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score has been used since February 2002 to allocat

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

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

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

138 MELD scores have been validated in the setting of end-st

139 22; 95% confidence interval: 1.11, 1.33) and MELD score (hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% confidence interval:

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

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

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

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

144 [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

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

146 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

147 The MELD score identified left ventricular assist device can

148 6-8) to 4 years in patients with the highest MELD scores (ie, 36-40).

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

150 Additional MELD scoring improved the prediction of HE.

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

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

153 ty of the model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score in predicting the outcome of alcoholic liver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

169 for patients of Child's class A or B or with MELD scores less than 13.

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

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

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

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

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

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

176 me centers had lower MELD scores (35.1% with MELD scores < or =18 vs. 22.7% and 27.0% at medium- and

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

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

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

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

181 Recipients with low MELD scores (<15) received the highest proportion of ECD

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

183 Thirty-day mortality ranged from 5.7% (MELD score, <8) to more than 50% (MELD score, >20).

184 y; P = .005) among the less urgent patients (MELD scores, <20); mediation analysis suggests this chan

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

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

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

188 2.96), respectively, relative to a change in MELD score of 0 and adjusted for age, sex, race, Charlso

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

190 , 67.6% [146 of 216 patients]) with baseline MELD score of 12 or less who underwent TIPS placement be

191 A MELD score of 21 had a sensitivity of 75% and a specific

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

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

194 207 liver transplant recipients who achieved MELD score of 40 or higher from April 21, 2002, to May 1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

203 d no significant interaction between DRI and MELD score of the recipient.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

216 upon the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score of the recipient.

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

218 The MELD score (on a scale of 6 to 40, with higher values in

219 .97-4.52; P < .001) portal hypertension, and MELD score (OR, 1.79; 95% CI, 1.23-2.13; P < .001).

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

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

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

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

224 -induced liver disease and those with higher MELD score (P < .01).

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

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

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

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

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

230 The c-statistic for MELD score predicting 30-day mortality was 0.72.

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

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

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

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

235 Despite having lower MELD scores, recipients at high-volume centers also expe

236 SOC microbiota and MELD score remained similar throughout.

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

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

239 Allocation based on MELD scores should ensure that sicker patients receive t

240 MELD scores should not be used to predict outcomes in th

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

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

243 impact of ECD livers in recipients with high MELD scores suggests that this group of patients may ben

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

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

246 hough the model for end-stage renal disease (MELD) scoring system appears to fairly accurately predic

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

248 ve higher Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) scores than candidates with severe liver disease a

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

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

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

252 Despite the many advantages of the MELD score, there are approximately 15%-20% of patients

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

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

255 Following introduction of the MELD score to the liver transplantation allocation syste

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

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

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

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

260 ty of the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score to predict 30-day postoperative mortality fo

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

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

268 vailable in 753 patients, in whom the median MELD score was 10.8 and sodium was 137 mEq/L.

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

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

271 rs, respectively; P < 0.001), and the median MELD score was 22 compared with 24 at both medium- and l

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 icant correlation between fibrosis grade and MELD score was found.

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 0.95 for all candidates and 0.72 for can

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

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

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

281 The model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score was also independently predictive of HE, and

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

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

284 Preoperative MELD scores were calculated for subjects enrolled in the

285 The MELD scores were calculated using both creatinine values

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

287 easing recipient age, and elevated recipient MELD scores were found to increase the relative risk of

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

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

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

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

292 at further refinement and validation of the MELD score will continue.

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 e was the Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score with and without the addition of the serum s

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

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

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),