Risk of Kidney Stones With Surgical Intervention in Living Kidney Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A kidney stone in a person with a solitary kidney requires urgent attention, which may result in surgical and/or hospital attention. We conducted a matched retrospective cohort study to determine if living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors have a higher risk of: (i) kidney stones with surgical intervention, and (ii) hospital encounters for kidney stones. We reviewed all predonation charts for living kidney donations from 1992 to 2009 at five major transplant centers in Ontario, Canada, and linked this information to healthcare databases. We selected nondonors from the healthiest segment of the general population and matched 10 nondonors to every donor. Of the 2019 donors and 20 190 nondonors, none had evidence of kidney stones prior to cohort entry. Median follow-up time was 8.4 years (maximum 19.7 years; loss to follow-up <7%). There was no difference in the rate of kidney stones with surgical intervention in donors compared to nondonors (8.3 vs. 9.7 events/10 000 person-years; rate ratio 0.85; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.47-1.53). Similarly there was no difference in the rate of hospital encounters for kidney stones (12.1 vs. 16.1 events/10 000 person-years; rate ratio 0.75; 95% CI 0.45-1.24). These interim results are reassuring for the safety of living kidney donation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".