{"database":"biostudies-literature","file_versions":[],"scores":null,"additional":{"submitter":["Rodriguez-Peralvarez ML"],"funding":["Generalitat de Catalunya","Consejería de Salud y Consumo, Junta de Andalucía","Instituto de Salud Carlos III","Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología, Gobierno de España","Consejería de Transformación Económica, Industria, Conocimiento y Universidades"],"pagination":["e70520"],"full_dataset_link":["https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/studies/S-EPMC12853322"],"repository":["biostudies-literature"],"omics_type":["Unknown"],"volume":["46(3)"],"pubmed_abstract":["Background and aims
Although GEMA-Na outperforms MELD 3.0 for liver allocation, concerns about the subjectivity of its ascites component persist. We compared the performance of a GEMA-Na iteration that excludes ascites with other allocation scores.Approach and results
A multinational cohort study was conducted, including adult candidates for elective liver transplantation in the UK (2010-2020), Australia (1998-2020), and Spain (2016-2021). The primary outcome was mortality or delisting for sickness within 90 days. The prognostic impact of ascites was evaluated using multivariable Cox's regression. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's c-statistics (Hc). The study included 15 391 patients (28.5% women). The prevalence of the primary outcome was 5.8% in the UK, 5.3% in "],"journal":["Liver international : official journal of the International Association for the Study of the Liver"],"pubmed_title":["Excluding Ascites From the GEMA-Na Score Does Not Impact Outcome Predictions in Liver Transplant Candidates."],"pmcid":["PMC12853322"],"funding_grant_id":["PI22/00312","2021-SGR-01331","PID2023-150663NB-C22","PREDOC-00489","PI25/00439"],"pubmed_authors":["Cachero A","Majumdar A","Gastaca M","Molina Perez E","Cepeda-Franco C","Kalafateli M","Rodriguez-Soler M","Guijo-Rubio D","Ortiz ML","Taylor R","Rodriguez-Peralvarez ML","Colmenero J","Martin Mateos R","Cuadrado Lavin A","Gomez-Orellana AM","Otero A","Blanco Fernandez G","Gonzalez Grande R","Romero M","Dopazo C","Arias Milla A","Tsochatzis E","Espinosa MD","Aguilera MV","Barreales M","Lorente S","Oton E","Gonzalez Dieguez L","McCaughan GW","Sogbe M","Hervas Martinez C","Alonso Martin C","de la Rosa G"],"additional_accession":[]},"is_claimable":false,"name":"Excluding Ascites From the GEMA-Na Score Does Not Impact Outcome Predictions in Liver Transplant Candidates.","description":"Background and aims
Although GEMA-Na outperforms MELD 3.0 for liver allocation, concerns about the subjectivity of its ascites component persist. We compared the performance of a GEMA-Na iteration that excludes ascites with other allocation scores.Approach and results
A multinational cohort study was conducted, including adult candidates for elective liver transplantation in the UK (2010-2020), Australia (1998-2020), and Spain (2016-2021). The primary outcome was mortality or delisting for sickness within 90 days. The prognostic impact of ascites was evaluated using multivariable Cox's regression. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's c-statistics (Hc). The study included 15 391 patients (28.5% women). The prevalence of the primary outcome was 5.8% in the UK, 5.3% in ","dates":{"release":"2026-01-01T00:00:00Z","publication":"2026 Mar","modification":"2026-06-13T05:28:10.386Z","creation":"2026-06-13T03:09:18.661Z"},"accession":"S-EPMC12853322","cross_references":{"pubmed":["41608883"],"doi":["10.1111/liv.70520"]}}