GastroAGI Logo
OverviewBlogsAbout
Trending TopicsDaily BriefConference

117 calculators match

GastroAGI flagship

1
MASLD–MASH NITIntegrated non-invasive assessment of MASLD fibrosis and at-risk MASH — FIB-4, APRI, NFS, FAST, Agile 3+, Agile 4, ELF and ADAPT in one pass

Most used

21
MELD-NaAssesses the severity of chronic liver diseaseChild-Pugh ScoreAssesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosisFIB-4 IndexLiver fibrosis scoring indexAPRIAST to platelet ratio — liver fibrosisMaddrey's DFAlcoholic hepatitis severityGlasgow-BlatchfordUpper GI bleed risk stratificationGAHSGlasgow alcoholic hepatitis scoreMontreal IBDIBD classification — CD & UCMayo ScoreUlcerative colitis activityBISAP ScoreBedside index for severity of pancreatitisCLIF-SOFAOrgan failure scoring in cirrhosisAlcohol ContentStandard drinks & alcohol grams calculatorAARC-ACLFAcute-on-chronic liver failure gradePELD / CR ScorePediatric end-stage liver diseaseHarvey-BradshawCrohn's disease activity indexCTSICT severity index — pancreatitisRockall ScoreGI bleed rebleeding & mortality riskCAGEAlcohol use disorder screening (4 questions)MELD 3.0Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formulaAUDIT ScoreAlcohol use disorders identification testVOCAL-Penn ScorePost-operative mortality risk in cirrhosis surgery

Liver & Cirrhosis

17
ALBI GradeAlbumin-bilirubin liver function grade in HCCUKELD ScoreUK model for end-stage liver diseaseMELD-XIMELD excluding INR — for anticoagulated patientsWest Haven CriteriaHepatic encephalopathy gradingMilan CriteriaLiver transplant eligibility in hepatocellular carcinomaLI-RADS v2018 (CT/MRI)Liver observation category from size, APHE and major featuresBCLC StagingHepatocellular carcinoma stage and treatment allocationSimplified AIH CriteriaSimplified criteria for autoimmune hepatitisRevised Original AIH ScoreIAIHG 1999 comprehensive autoimmune hepatitis scoreSAAGSerum-ascites albumin gradient — cause of ascitesR FactorHepatocellular vs cholestatic pattern in liver injuryCLIF-C ACLFMortality prediction in acute-on-chronic liver failureKing's College CriteriaTransplant criteria in acute liver failureGALAD ScoreHCC detection from gender, age, AFP-L3, AFP and DCPMetroticket 2.0AFP-adjusted up-to-seven for HCC transplant eligibilityRUCAMCausality in drug- and herb-induced liver injuryBaveno VII CriteriacACLD, CSPH and sparing screening endoscopy

Fibrosis & MASLD

8
NAFLD Fibrosis ScoreAdvanced fibrosis probability in MASLD/NAFLDBARD ScoreBMI, AST/ALT ratio, diabetes — MASLD fibrosisFatty Liver IndexPredicts hepatic steatosis from routine labsFibrotic NASH Index (FNI)At-risk NASH probability from AST, HbA1c and HDLNAFLD Activity Score (NAS)Histologic activity grade — steatosis, inflammation, ballooningMEFIB IndexMRE + FIB-4 rule for significant fibrosis (≥F2) in MASLDFAST ScoreFibroScan-AST — at-risk NASH from LSM, CAP and ASTSAFE ScoreSteatosis-Associated Fibrosis Estimator for MASLD in primary care

Pancreas & Biliary

8
Ranson's CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity at 48 hoursGlasgow-Imrie CriteriaAcute pancreatitis severity — the PANCREAS criteriaHAPSHarmless acute pancreatitis scoreTokyo Guidelines — CholangitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholangitisTokyo Guidelines — CholecystitisTG18 diagnosis and severity grade for acute cholecystitisBiliary Pain (Rome IV)Rome IV — defining biliary-type pain before interventionFunctional Pancreatic SODRome IV — pancreatic sphincter of Oddi disorderRevised Atlanta ClassificationAcute pancreatitis severity — mild, moderately severe, severe

IBD

9
Truelove & Witts CriteriaAcute severe ulcerative colitis — admission decisionUCEISUlcerative colitis endoscopic index of severitySCCAISimple clinical colitis activity index — symptoms onlyCDAICrohn's disease activity index — the trial standardSES-CDEndoscopic severity in Crohn's diseasePUCAIPaediatric ulcerative colitis activity indexTravis (Oxford) CriteriaDay 3 colectomy risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisHo IndexDay 3 steroid failure risk in acute severe ulcerative colitisRutgeerts ScorePostoperative Crohn's recurrence at ileocolonoscopy

GI Bleeding

7
EVendo ScorePredicts oesophageal varices needing treatmentForrest ClassificationPeptic ulcer bleeding — rebleeding risk at endoscopyAIMS65 ScoreUpper GI bleed mortality — five bedside criteriaOakland ScoreSafe-discharge risk for acute lower GI bleedingABC ScoreAge, blood tests, comorbidities — GI bleed mortalitySarin ClassificationEndoscopic classification of gastric varicesEGUS (Gastric Ulcer)Malignancy risk in a gastric ulcer, and who needs repeat endoscopy

Alcohol

2
ABIC ScoreAge, bilirubin, INR, creatinine — alcoholic hepatitisLille ModelSteroid response at day 7 in alcoholic hepatitis

Upper GI

4
Chicago Classification v4.0Oesophageal motility pattern from high-resolution manometryLA Classification (Oesophagitis)Los Angeles grade A–D for erosive oesophagitisPrague C & M CriteriaCircumferential and maximal extent of Barrett's oesophagusEREFS (Eosinophilic Oesophagitis)Endoscopic reference score — oedema, rings, exudates, furrows, stricture

Colorectal

3
Boston Bowel Prep ScaleColonoscopy preparation adequacy by segmentStool Osmotic GapOsmotic vs secretory diarrhoea from stool electrolytesATLAS Score (C. difficile)Predicted response to therapy in Clostridioides difficile infection

Functional GI

37
Bristol Stool ScaleStool form types 1–7 and colonic transitRome IV Criteria for IBSIrritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and subtypeFunctional ConstipationRome IV — two of six items, IBS excludedOpioid-Induced ConstipationRome IV — constipation tied to opioid therapyFunctional DiarrhoeaRome IV — loose stools without predominant painFunctional Bloating / DistensionRome IV — bloating without other bowel disorder criteriaUnspecified Functional Bowel DisorderRome IV — bowel symptoms fitting no other categoryCentrally Mediated Abdominal Pain (CAPS)Rome IV — continuous pain unrelated to gut eventsNarcotic Bowel SyndromeRome IV — opioid-induced hyperalgesia of the gutFaecal Incontinence (Rome IV)Rome IV — the criteria, and why nobody is askedFunctional Anorectal PainLevator ani, unspecified pain and proctalgia fugaxFunctional Defecation DisordersRome IV — dyssynergia and inadequate propulsionInfant RegurgitationRome IV — the happy spitter, and the alarm features that rule it outInfant ColicRome IV — recurrent unexplained crying in a well infant under 5 monthsInfant DyscheziaRome IV — straining before a soft stool, and why not to intervenePaediatric Functional ConstipationRome IV — two of six over one month, with overflow soiling as a criterionToddler's DiarrhoeaRome IV functional diarrhoea of childhood — painless, thriving childPaediatric Cyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — both age bands, with different criteria for eachPaediatric Rumination SyndromeRome IV — infant and child/adolescent criteriaFunctional Nausea & Vomiting (Children)Rome IV — two separate disorders that can be met togetherAerophagiaRome IV — distension that increases through the dayPaediatric Functional DyspepsiaRome IV — four times a month, with PDS and EPS subtypingPaediatric Irritable Bowel SyndromeRome IV — plus the constipation clause clinicians missAbdominal MigraineRome IV — stereotypical incapacitating episodes weeks apartFunctional Abdominal Pain — NOSRome IV — the residual category, reached after the other threeNonretentive Faecal IncontinenceRome IV — soiling without retention, where laxatives make it worseFunctional DyspepsiaRome IV — with PDS and EPS subtypingRumination SyndromeRome IV — effortless regurgitation without retchingCyclic Vomiting SyndromeRome IV — stereotypical episodic vomitingCannabinoid HyperemesisRome IV — CVS pattern relieved by cannabis cessationChronic Nausea & VomitingRome IV — chronic nausea and vomiting syndromeBelching DisordersRome IV — supragastric vs gastric belchingFunctional HeartburnRome IV — heartburn with normal acid exposureReflux HypersensitivityRome IV — normal acid exposure, positive symptom associationFunctional Chest PainRome IV — non-cardiac, non-reflux chest painGlobusRome IV — painless lump-in-throat sensationFunctional DysphagiaRome IV — dysphagia with normal endoscopy and manometry
  1. Calculators
  2. /
  3. PELD / CR Score
Liver & CirrhosisMost used

PELD / CR Score

Pediatric end-stage liver disease

Under 12 months adds 0.436 to the linear predictor. PELD applies to candidates under 12 years.

Height or weight more than two standard deviations below the mean for age.

Standard OPTN PELD, for candidates under 12. It does not include creatinine — kidney function is not part of the published paediatric model.

When to use
Calculate PELD for a child under 12 with chronic liver disease who is being assessed for, or is already on, the deceased-donor liver transplant waiting list, and recalculate it at the intervals the allocation policy requires. It is designed for chronic disease and for the specific decision of relative waitlist priority. It does not apply to children aged 12 and over, who are scored with the adult MELD family, nor to acute liver failure, which is handled under separate status-1A criteria. Because the score is known to under-represent severity in several paediatric conditions, treat a low PELD in a child who looks clinically unwell as a prompt to pursue exception points rather than as reassurance.
Why use it
Because adult MELD does not describe why children with liver disease die. The variables that dominate paediatric outcome — failure to grow, hypoalbuminaemia, and being an infant — are absent from MELD, while creatinine, one of MELD's strongest terms, adds little in small children whose muscle mass makes it an insensitive marker of renal function. McDiarmid and colleagues built PELD from paediatric registry data so that priority would rest on paediatric determinants, and the inclusion of growth failure in particular encodes something clinically actionable: nutritional status is a modifiable predictor of transplant outcome, not merely a marker of severity.
Formula, evidence and interpretation

About the Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) Score

PELD ranks children under 12 years on the liver transplant waiting list using five items — bilirubin, INR, albumin, age under one year, and growth failure — and, unlike the adult MELD, it contains no creatinine, because kidney function was not retained in the published paediatric model. Scores of 10 or below indicate lower severity, 11–20 moderate severity with increasing waitlist priority, and above 20 high severity warranting urgent transplant assessment. Its central and well-documented weakness is that it underestimates paediatric waitlist mortality: children frequently need PELD exception points to achieve appropriate priority, and a revised version adding sodium and creatinine (PELD-Na-Cr) raised the area under the curve from 0.799 to 0.854.

On this page

  • Formula
  • Interpreting the result
  • Inputs
  • What it returns
  • How it is calculated
  • Facts & figures
  • Evidence
  • How it compares
  • Pearls & pitfalls
  • Critical actions
  • Why it exists
  • About the creator
  • Limitations
  • If you are the patient
  • FAQ
  • Related calculators
  • References

Formula

PELD = 10 × [0.480 × ln(bilirubin mg/dL) + 1.857 × ln(INR) − 0.687 × ln(albumin g/dL) + 0.436 (if age < 12 months) + 0.667 (if growth failure)]
bilirubin
Total bilirubin in mg/dL.
INR
International normalised ratio. Its coefficient of 1.857 is the largest, so coagulopathy moves PELD most.
albumin
Serum albumin in g/dL, entering negatively — the lower the albumin, the higher the score.
age < 12 months
A fixed 0.436 added for infants, reflecting their higher waitlist mortality.
growth failure
A fixed 0.667 added when height or weight is more than two standard deviations below the mean for age.
  • There is no creatinine term. Renal function is not part of the published paediatric model, which is the single biggest structural difference from adult MELD.
  • The age term is a step, not a gradient — it applies in full below 12 months and not at all above, so a score can drop on a birthday without any change in the child's condition.
  • The whole bracket is multiplied by 10 and the result rounded, which is why small laboratory changes can move the reported integer.
  • Growth failure is defined anthropometrically (more than two standard deviations below the mean for height or weight), not by clinical impression.

Interpreting the result

A score of 10 or below indicates lower severity, and management continues as paediatric hepatology follow-up with close attention to growth and nutrition. Scores of 11–20 signal moderate severity and increasing waitlist priority; nutrition is a modifiable determinant of outcome at this stage, so a paediatric dietitian should be involved rather than merely consulted. Above 20 the child is at high severity and transplant assessment should be urgent. The critical interpretive caveat is that a reassuring PELD is less reassuring than the equivalent adult MELD: because the score systematically under-ranks paediatric waitlist mortality, children commonly require exception points, and a clinically deteriorating child with a modest score should trigger an exception application rather than watchful waiting. Analysis found the original PELD would need roughly nine additional points to equalise children's mortality risk against the age-standardised adult rate.

ScoreBandWhat it meansAction
≤ 10Lower severityLower predicted risk of death or transfer to intensive careContinue paediatric hepatology follow-up with growth and nutrition monitoring
11–20Moderate severityIncreasing waitlist priorityEnsure transplant assessment is under way; involve a paediatric dietitian, as nutrition is modifiable at this stage
> 20High severityHigh predicted risk of death or intensive-care transferUrgent transplant assessment; consider exception points, as PELD under-represents severity in several paediatric conditions

Scroll the table sideways for every column.

What the PELD / CR Score needs (5 inputs)

Total bilirubin
Serum total bilirubin, entered in mg/dL or µmol/L.
INR
International normalised ratio — the largest coefficient in the model.
Albumin
Serum albumin, which enters with a negative coefficient so that a lower albumin raises the score.
Age (months)
Age under 12 months adds a fixed 0.436 to the linear predictor. PELD applies to candidates under 12 years.
Growth failure
Height or weight more than two standard deviations below the mean for age; adds a fixed 0.667 to the linear predictor.

Units. The published coefficients expect bilirubin in mg/dL and albumin in g/dL. To convert: bilirubin µmol/L ÷ 17.1 = mg/dL; albumin g/L ÷ 10 = g/dL. This calculator accepts either unit and converts internally.

What it returns

PELD score
The rounded score used for waitlist priority.
Severity band
Lower, moderate, or high severity.

How it is calculated

PELD was derived from the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation database, a consortium of 29 centres across the United States and Canada, restricted to children with chronic liver disease listed for a first transplant. Two endpoints were modelled: death, and the composite of death or transfer to intensive care. Seventeen candidate factors were narrowed to five that predicted those outcomes — bilirubin, INR, albumin, infancy, and growth failure — with the first three entering on a natural-log scale and the last two as fixed increments. The resulting linear predictor is multiplied by ten and rounded, placing PELD on a scale broadly comparable to MELD so that paediatric and adult candidates can be ranked against one another in a shared allocation system, which is precisely where its calibration problems later surfaced.

Facts & figures

PELD compared with adult MELD
PELDAdult MELD
Age rangeUnder 12 years12 years and over
BilirubinYesYes
INRYesYes
AlbuminYesNo
CreatinineNoYes
Growth failureYesNo
Infancy (< 12 months)Yes (+0.436)Not applicable

Scroll the table sideways for every column.

The two are scaled to be comparable so children and adults can be ranked in one system — but PELD's known underestimation of paediatric waitlist mortality means comparable numbers have not meant comparable risk.

Recalibration: original PELD versus PELD-Na-Cr (Braun 2021)
ModelCross-validated AUC ROC
Original PELD0.799
PELD-Na-Cr (adds sodium and creatinine)0.854

Scroll the table sideways for every column.

Derived in 5,111 children under 12 listed 2005–2017 with 339 waitlist mortality events. The revised model required 9.44 additional points to equalise children's mortality risk with the age-standardised adult rate.

Evidence

Derivation — McDiarmid (SPLIT)

2002 · n = 884

Data from the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation consortium of 29 US and Canadian centres, restricted to children with chronic liver disease listed for a first transplant. Two pre-transplant endpoints were evaluated: death (n = 884) and death or transfer to intensive care (n = 779). Seventeen candidate factors were reduced to five.

A model using five objective parameters — bilirubin, INR, albumin, age under one year and growth failure — accurately predicted death, or death and transfer to intensive care, in children awaiting liver transplantation.

Recalibration with sodium and creatinine — Braun

2021 · n = 5,111

5,111 children under 12 years with chronic liver disease listed for deceased-donor livers between January 2005 and December 2017, followed from listing to waitlist mortality (death, or removal for being too sick to transplant; 339 events) or 180 days. Linear splines were fitted to the existing PELD components and sodium and creatinine were added.

The updated PELD-Na-Cr achieved a cross-validated AUC ROC of 0.854 against 0.799 for the original PELD, and required 9.44 additional points to equalise children's mortality risk with the age-standardised adult rate — quantifying the long-recognised finding that the original score underestimates paediatric waitlist mortality.

How it compares

PELD / CR Score vs MELD-Na (adult)

PELD and adult MELD-Na are scaled to be compared but are not built from the same variables — PELD swaps creatinine for albumin, growth failure and infancy, and has been shown to under-rank paediatric mortality relative to the adult scale.

MELD-Na relies on bilirubin, INR, creatinine and sodium; PELD uses bilirubin, INR, albumin, infancy and growth failure. The rationale for the divergence is sound — creatinine is an insensitive marker of renal function in small children, while growth and albumin carry real paediatric prognostic weight. The consequence is that equal numbers have not meant equal risk: registry analysis found the original PELD needed roughly nine extra points to bring children's mortality risk into line with the age-standardised adult rate, which is why exception points became routine.

Open the MELD-Na (adult) calculator →Braun HJ, Perito ER, Dodge JL, et al. Improving the predictive ability of the pediatric end-stage liver disease score for young children awaiting liver transplant. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(1):222-231.

PELD / CR Score vs Child-Pugh score

Child-Pugh grades cirrhosis severity in broad classes and was never designed for children or for allocation; PELD is the paediatric waitlist instrument and is built from objective, verifiable variables for exactly that reason.

Child-Pugh's subjective ascites and encephalopathy items make it unsuitable for rationing, and encephalopathy in particular is difficult to grade reliably in infants and young children. PELD deliberately admits only measurable parameters. Child-Pugh retains descriptive value for paediatric chronic liver disease severity in clinical conversation, but it plays no part in determining waitlist priority.

Open the Child-Pugh score calculator →

Pearls & pitfalls

  • PELD contains no creatinine. Despite the widely used 'PELD-Cr' label, kidney function is not part of the published paediatric model — a creatinine-containing variant is a separate, later recalibration rather than standard PELD.
  • The infancy term is a cliff edge: it adds 0.436 to the linear predictor below 12 months and nothing at all above, so a child's score falls at their first birthday without any change in their liver.
  • A low PELD in a visibly unwell child is a reason to apply for exception points, not to wait. Underestimation of paediatric waitlist mortality is a documented property of the score, not an occasional anomaly.
  • Growth failure is an anthropometric definition — height or weight more than two standard deviations below the mean for age — so it needs a plotted measurement, not an impression.
  • Albumin enters negatively, so albumin infusion lowers the score without improving the underlying disease.
  • PELD stops at 12 years. Adolescents are scored on the adult MELD family, which changes which variables count and can shift apparent priority abruptly around that boundary.

Critical actions

  • Plot height and weight against population standards before scoring, rather than judging growth failure clinically — it carries a fixed 0.667 and is frequently missed.
  • Pursue exception points where the clinical picture outruns the score; several paediatric conditions are known to be under-represented by PELD.
  • Involve a paediatric dietitian early, particularly in the moderate band — nutritional status is one of the few modifiable determinants of transplant outcome.
  • Recalculate at the intervals policy requires; PELD is a dynamic score and stale values misrepresent priority.
  • Confirm the child's age in months and whether they are under 12 years before using PELD at all, since both the infancy term and the PELD/MELD boundary are step changes.

Why this score exists

The authors' brief was to build a score from parameters that were easily obtainable, objective and verifiable, because the purpose was allocation rather than bedside assessment — a score used to ration organs has to resist both error and gaming, which rules out anything requiring clinical judgement. That constraint explains what PELD includes and what it leaves out: growth failure made the cut because it is measurable against population standards, while the subjective severity markers a paediatric hepatologist would weigh did not. It also explains the score's enduring problem. Optimising for verifiability produced a model that ranks children reliably against each other but, as later registry analysis showed, not accurately against adults competing for the same organs.

About the creator

  • Sue V. McDiarmid

    First author, 2002 derivation study

    Derived PELD from the Studies of Pediatric Liver Transplantation registry, restricted to objective and verifiable parameters because the score was intended for organ allocation.

Limitations

  • It underestimates paediatric waitlist mortality relative to adults competing for the same organs, which is why exception points are so frequently required — the central and long-recognised criticism of the score.
  • It omits creatinine, so genuine renal dysfunction in an older child is invisible to it; a recalibrated PELD-Na-Cr adding sodium and creatinine performed considerably better (AUC 0.854 versus 0.799).
  • The infancy term is binary rather than continuous, producing a discontinuity at 12 months that does not correspond to any biological threshold.
  • It was derived on children with chronic liver disease and does not apply to acute liver failure, which is managed under separate urgent criteria.
  • It under-represents severity in specific paediatric conditions — metabolic disease, hepatoblastoma, recurrent cholangitis in biliary atresia — where morbidity is not reflected in bilirubin, INR or albumin.
  • Albumin is directly manipulable by infusion, and growth failure, once present, does not reverse quickly, so the score responds asymmetrically to intervention.

If you are the patient

PELD is a score used to work out how urgently a child under 12 with long-term liver disease needs a liver transplant, and how they should be prioritised on the waiting list. It uses three blood tests — bilirubin (which reflects jaundice), INR (a clotting test) and albumin (a protein made by the liver) — together with whether the child is under one year old and whether they are growing poorly for their age. Higher scores mean more urgent need. One important thing families often are not told: this score is known to understate how unwell children are compared with adults waiting for the same organs. That is why transplant teams can apply for extra 'exception' points when a child is clearly sicker than their number suggests. If your child seems unwell but has a low score, that is a recognised limitation of the score itself, and it is worth asking the team directly about exception points.

Frequently asked questions

What is the PELD score and who is it for?#

It is the score used to rank children under 12 years with chronic liver disease on the deceased-donor liver transplant waiting list. It combines bilirubin, INR, albumin, being under 12 months old, and growth failure.

Does PELD include creatinine?#

No. Standard PELD contains no creatinine — kidney function was not retained in the published paediatric model, largely because creatinine is an insensitive marker of renal function in small children. A later recalibration, PELD-Na-Cr, does add sodium and creatinine, but it is a separate model.

What is a high PELD score?#

Above 20 indicates high severity and warrants urgent transplant assessment. Scores of 11–20 indicate moderate severity with increasing waitlist priority, and 10 or below lower severity.

Why do children need PELD exception points?#

Because PELD underestimates paediatric waitlist mortality relative to adults on the same list. Registry analysis found the original score would need roughly nine additional points to equalise children's mortality risk with the age-standardised adult rate, so exception points close a gap in the score itself.

What counts as growth failure in PELD?#

Height or weight more than two standard deviations below the mean for the child's age. It must be measured and plotted against population standards, and it adds a fixed 0.667 to the linear predictor.

What happens to the score when a child turns one?#

The infancy term, worth 0.436 in the linear predictor, is removed. The score therefore falls at 12 months of age even though nothing about the child's liver disease has changed — a known discontinuity in the model.

Related calculators

  • MELD-Na — Assesses the severity of chronic liver disease
  • MELD 3.0 — Updated MELD — sex-inclusive formula
  • Child-Pugh Score — Assesses the prognosis of chronic liver disease, mainly cirrhosis
  • UKELD Score — UK model for end-stage liver disease

References

Original / primary reference

  1. McDiarmid SV, Anand R, Lindblad AS, et al. Development of a pediatric end-stage liver disease score to predict poor outcome in children awaiting liver transplantation. Transplantation. 2002;74(2):173-181.

Validation and recalibration

  1. Braun HJ, Perito ER, Dodge JL, et al. Improving the predictive ability of the pediatric end-stage liver disease score for young children awaiting liver transplant. Am J Transplant. 2021;21(1):222-231.

Growth failure and allocation

  1. Perito ER, Bucuvalas J, Lai JC. Impact of the Pediatric End-Stage Liver Disease (PELD) growth failure thresholds on mortality among pediatric liver transplant candidates. Am J Transplant. 2019;19(12):3308-3318.

Last updated July 30, 2026. Clinical knowledge base written and curated by GastroAGI Team from primary medical literature.

Written from primary literature and not yet independently clinically reviewed.

For use by qualified healthcare professionals. This calculator supports clinical judgement and does not replace it.