Solitary renal allografts from pediatric cadaver donors less than 2 years of age transplanted into adult recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transplantation of solitary pediatric renal allografts from donors 2 years of age or younger into adult recipients is controversial. METHODS: Between 1998 and 2001, 15 solitary renal allografts from pediatric donors 2 years of age or younger were transplanted into adult recipients. Thirty-three en bloc renal allografts transplanted between 1994 and 2001 were used for comparison. En bloc kidneys were considered for separation if they measured greater than or equal to 6 cm in length. Renal function (creatinine clearance [CrCl]) was estimated using the Cockroft-Gault formula. RESULTS: Two-year graft survival for the solitary and en bloc groups were 93% and 77%, respectively (P =0.405). Five grafts were lost because of arterial thrombosis (four en bloc and one solitary). Ureteral complications occurred in three grafts in the en bloc group. One-year postoperative CrCl of the surviving solitary (n=14) and en bloc (n=26) grafts were 51.4+/-26.2 mL/min and 55.1+/-27.5 mL/min (P >0.05), respectively. Donor weight and kidney length were greater in the solitary group (14.3+/-3.5 kg and 6.3+/-0.4 cm, respectively) compared with the en bloc group (10.8+/-2.6 kg and 5.9+/-0.3 cm, respectively) (P =0.001 and P <0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Separation of en bloc pairs into solitary allografts can be considered when the graft measures greater than or equal to 6 cm in length and donor weight is greater than or equal to 14 kg. The transplantation of solitary pediatric kidneys into adult recipients is successful, and the majority of pediatric en bloc allografts can be separated before transplantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".