MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Outcomes of renal transplantation in recipients with Wegener’s granulomatosis

2010· article· en· W1902382784 on OpenAlexaff
Jenny I. Shen, Jagbir Gill, Muyun Shangguan, Marcelo Santos Sampaio, Suphamai Bunnapradist

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsSt. Paul's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineWegener granulomatosisTransplantationKidney transplantationGranulomatosis with polyangiitisPathologyInternal medicineVasculitisSystemic diseaseImmunopathologyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Wegener's granulomatosis (WG) is the leading cause of rapidly progressive glomerulonephritis-induced end-stage renal disease (ESRD). In this study, we compared transplant outcomes between recipients with ESRD caused by WG to recipients with ESRD secondary to other causes. Using OPTN/UNOS data from 1996 to 2007, 919 recipients with WG were identified. Post-transplant outcomes included rates of delayed graft function, acute rejection within one-yr post-transplant, overall and death-censored graft survival, and patient survival and were compared between recipients with ESRD secondary to WG versus ESRD from other causes. Recipients with ESRD because of WG had superior unadjusted and adjusted rates of graft loss, patient death, and functional graft loss (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.711, 0.631, and 0.625 respectively, p < 0.001). When we compared the WG cohort to a non-WG, non-diabetic population, the HR for graft loss was still significant, but patient death and death-censored graft loss were not. Subgroup analysis of recipients aged over 60 confirmed that WG recipients had better unadjusted outcomes. This study supports the notion that renal transplantation is an effective treatment option for patients with ESRD secondary to WG. They fare similarly, if not better, than other patients.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.328

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.311 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations27
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207