PD31-05 THE CANADIAN ANATOMIC KIDNEY SCORE: QUANTITATIVE MACROSCOPIC ASSESSMENT VERSUS HISTOLOGICAL GRADING IN PRE-TRANSPLANT EVALUATION OF DONOR KIDNEYS
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyCME1 Apr 2023PD31-05 THE CANADIAN ANATOMIC KIDNEY SCORE: QUANTITATIVE MACROSCOPIC ASSESSMENT VERSUS HISTOLOGICAL GRADING IN PRE-TRANSPLANT EVALUATION OF DONOR KIDNEYS Jirong Lu, Juliano Offerni, Danny Matti, Haider Abed, Pavel Roshanov, Alp Sener, and Patrick Luke Jirong LuJirong Lu More articles by this author , Juliano OfferniJuliano Offerni More articles by this author , Danny MattiDanny Matti More articles by this author , Haider AbedHaider Abed More articles by this author , Pavel RoshanovPavel Roshanov More articles by this author , Alp SenerAlp Sener More articles by this author , and Patrick LukePatrick Luke More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000003324.05AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: The Canadian Anatomic Kidney Score (CAKS) is a novel grading system that provides a framework for macroscopic description of the donor kidney that can standardize communication between clinicians on the quality of the graft. We hypothesize that the CAKS score can independently predict graft outcomes and correlates with KDPI and histologic assessment. METHODS: Between 2018-2020, donor kidneys were prospectively evaluated using CAKS by assessing the macroscopic appearance of the kidney. CAKS uses set criteria to evaluate the arterial vessel, parenchymal anatomy (presence of cysts and scars), sticky fat, and fibrosis (up to 2 points each for a maximum of 8). Renal implantation core biopsy was performed and histologically graded by Remuzzi score (RS). Neither CAKS nor RS was used to determine donor utility. Pre-operative donor score was also obtained using KDPI. Graft outcomes were prospectively tracked with graft failure defined by graft loss or GFR<30 at one year. RESULTS: 174 patients were analysed. There was a poor correlation between CAKS and RS (r2=0.03). CAKS correlated better with KDPI (r2=0.22) than RS with KDPI (r2=0.06). On logistic regression analysis, both CAKS (OR 1.48, p=0.029) and RS (OR 1.55, p=0.010) independently predicted for graft failure. On subset analysis, vascular features were the strongest predictors of graft failure for both CAKS (OR 2.26, p=0.22) and RS (OR 2.39, p=0.054). CONCLUSIONS: The novel CAKS can be used to predict graft outcomes and correlates well with KDPI scores. We seek to evaluate the replicability of CAKS in other centres and potentially develop composite scores to better predict donor graft function in the future. Source of Funding: None © 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 209Issue Supplement 4April 2023Page: e902 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2023 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jirong Lu More articles by this author Juliano Offerni More articles by this author Danny Matti More articles by this author Haider Abed More articles by this author Pavel Roshanov More articles by this author Alp Sener More articles by this author Patrick Luke More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement PDF downloadLoading ...
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 distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
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 tête enseignante, 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 ».