Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Educating, Evaluating, and Selecting Living Kidney Donors Robert W. Steiner ( Ed ). Dordrecht : Kluwer Academic Publishers ; 2004 . 164pp. , ISBN 1-4020-12713 ( Hb ); ISBN 1-4020-2276-X ( e-book ). Live donor kidney transplantation is now relatively common practice for most North American and European transplant centers. The rates of this procedure have been increasing over the past few years in order to meet the demands created by the shortage of cadaveric organs. Despite this, however, there is a relative paucity of information available to guide transplant centers in their evaluation of prospective live kidney donors. Indeed, there is very little standardization of the process of donor assessment, and what may be acceptable to one particular transplant center may be rejected by another. This book of eight chapters written by internationally recognized leaders in the field including the editor, Dr. Robert Steiner, is a timely addition that fills a significant void. The first chapter enunciates basic principles of donor evaluation that apply to all centers involved in counseling live donors, and outline the justification for live donor transplantation. The second and third chapters provide quality-of-life and outcome data. The authors emphasize that risk applies to everyone contemplating kidney donation and that the donor needs to be able to assess the degree of risk against the anticipated benefit to him or herself (not the recipient). Transplant centers bear the responsibility for ensuring that the potential donor can make an informed decision, and should be convinced that the donor's decision is rational. Donors deemed to be incapable of making an informed decision must be disqualified. Chapters four and five offer pragmatic guidance regarding the evaluation of medical problems that are commonly seen in potential donors, including microscopic hematuria, isolated proteinuria, hypertension, nephrolithiasis and abnormalities of glucose metabolism. This includes estimates of the incremental risk that these abnormalities confer to the donor for developing end-stage renal disease after kidney donation. The risk estimates are based on data extracted from a thorough review of background literature, and probably represent the most complete compendium of such information currently available. Many physicians involved in the assessment of potential donors will find this quantitative risk information to be indispensable in discussions with any person being assessed for kidney donation. Chapter six, which discusses the risk of diabetes and diabetic nephropathy, focuses more on risks related to the recipient, and perhaps could have provided information more relevant to the position of the potential donor, particularly in situations where type 2 diabetes is prevalent in the donor population. The latter part of the book addresses the issue of donor education and understanding. Dr. Steiner underscores the importance of clarity in communicating risk to donors, and the tools he has developed to this end are described in some detail. In effect, these represent a test of the ‘health literacy’ of the potential donor. This is a strategy which should be considered by all centers involved in live donor transplantation, and would be applicable to organs other than kidney. Those looking for a prescriptive approach to live donor assessment may be disappointed, for the book does not offer a simple set of criteria for accepting or excluding prospective live donors. Rather, the authors charge the reader/evaluator with the responsibility of giving individualized factual and wherever possible quantitative information to prospective donors regarding the risks of donation. The book is readable and organized, with a point-form summary at the beginning of each chapter. The chapters are well referenced, and provide a comprehensive bibliography for those wishing to go to the primary literature. In some ways this is a provocative book. Not every reader will be happy with the lack of specific directives or simple criteria for donor evaluation. However, the wealth of information regarding risk estimates to donors makes this book valuable reading for anyone involved in the evaluation of live donors. Perhaps it will provide the impetus to develop standardized criteria by which potential organ donors are evaluated, and lead to the establishment of donor registries.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,003 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,004 | 0,002 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,350 | 0,298 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».