MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981069132 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2009.067983

Our approach to a renal transplant biopsy

2009· article· en· W1981069132 on OpenAlexaff
Rohan John, Andrew M. Herzenberg

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBiopsyTransplantationChronic allograft nephropathyGold standard (test)CalcineurinIntensive care medicineNephrologyDiseaseDifferential diagnosisKidney diseaseKidney transplantationSurgeryInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kidney transplantation has become increasingly common in major health centres, making renal allograft evaluation through biopsy a common procedure. Early allograft dysfunction occurs in 30-50% of all transplants, while chronic graft failure is almost uniform at a rate of 2-4% a year. Allograft biopsy remains the gold standard for the diagnosis of graft dysfunction. Rejection, albeit the most important, is only one of many causes of allograft dysfunction. The widely accepted Banff classification has set criteria for the diagnosis of acute and chronic rejection. The major differential diagnoses are acute ischaemic injury, calcineurin inhibitor toxicity (acute and chronic), infections, including pyelonephritis and polyomavirus nephropathy, chronic obstruction/reflux, hypertension, and recurrent and de novo disease. In this review, there is an outline of the Banff criteria and their implications, the various causes of graft dysfunction, and a discussion on morphological guidelines towards the various diagnoses.

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)0.001
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 score0.285
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.119
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.323 · 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
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207