Impact of Deceased Donor Diabetes Mellitus on Kidney Transplant Outcomes: A Propensity Score-Matched Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is a paucity of population-level data on the long-term outcomes of kidney transplants from deceased donors with a history of diabetes mellitus (DM). METHODS: We examined the association of donor DM with graft and patient survival in 66,654 deceased donor kidney transplant recipients (KTR) from January 1, 1994, to December 31, 2003, in the United States. KTR receiving kidneys from DM versus non-DM donors were compared in the total study population and in a 1:1 propensity score-matched cohort. RESULTS: A total of 2302 KTR received kidneys from DM donors over the study period. Older and female recipients, increased donor age, longer cold ischemia time, and transplants after 2000 were associated with a greater odds of receiving a DM donor. After propensity score matching, Cox proportional hazards models revealed hazard ratios of 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02-1.22), 1.17 (95% CI: 1.04-1.33), and 1.06 (95% CI: 0.94-1.18) for graft failure, death-censored graft failure, and patient mortality, respectively. No significant effect measure modification was seen across various patient subgroups. Longer duration of donor DM was generally associated with an increased risk of adverse outcomes. The results were robust to several sensitivity analyses. CONCLUSIONS: The long-term graft survival of KTR with DM donors is significantly inferior to non-DM donors, but the absolute difference is small. DM donors do not adversely impact patient survival. This suggests that DM donors may be effectively used to expand the donor pool, but evidence-based guidelines on the appropriate selection of these donors are needed.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".