MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1966823867 · doi:10.4103/1319-2442.148707

Post-transplant venous thromboembolic events and their effect on graft survival

2015· article· en· W1966823867 on OpenAlexaff
Mazen Hassanain, Nasser Abualhassan, Murad Aljiffry, Lukman Thalib, Razek Georges Coussa, Peter Metrakos

Bibliographic record

VenueSaudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and Transplantation · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and Management
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioConfoundingConfidence intervalInternal medicineProportional hazards modelKidney transplantationSurvival analysisKidney transplantTransplantationStatistical significanceSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Venous thromboembolic events (VTEs) are a major cause of post-operative morbidity and mortality. Our objective is to establish the prevalence of VTEs in kidney transplant recipients and assess its impact on graft survival. Data regarding renal transplant patients with VTEs from 1985 to 2010 were identified and analyzed. After excluding recipients of combined grafts and late VTE development, 1596 recipients were included in this analysis. The prevalence of post-operative VTEs and graft survival were determined. Cox regression was used to analyze the survival data and data on prognostic (confounding) variables. The observed prevalence of VTEs in kidney transplant recipients was 1.6%. Of the 1596 kidney recipients, 25 recipients who developed VTEs had a mean graft survival of 12.3 years (compared with 20.5 years in patients without). The hazard ratio was 1.1 (95% confidence interval: 0.4-3.0, P = 0.447). The prevalence of VTEs post kidney transplantation is small. Although it did not reach statistical significance, it increased the risk of graft failure by 30%.

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 score0.209
Threshold uncertainty score0.572

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.258
Teacher spread0.247 · 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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSaudi Journal of Kidney Diseases and TransplantationSame topicVenous Thromboembolism Diagnosis and ManagementFrench-language works237,207