MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2006359137 · doi:10.1111/petr.12034

Pediatric kidney transplant practice patterns and outcome benchmarks, 1987–2010: A report of the <scp>N</scp>orth <scp>A</scp>merican <scp>P</scp>ediatric <scp>R</scp>enal <scp>T</scp>rials and <scp>C</scp>ollaborative <scp>S</scp>tudies

2013· article· en· W2006359137 on OpenAlexaff
Jodi M. Smith, Karen Martz, Tom Blydt‐Hansen

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDemographicsTransplantationKidney transplantationKidney transplantKidneyInternal medicineDemography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The NAPRTCS transplant registry has collected clinical information on children undergoing kidney transplantation since 1987 and now includes information on 11 603 kidney transplants in 10 632 patients. Since the first data analysis in 1989, NAPRTCS reports have documented marked improvements in outcome after kidney transplantation in addition to identifying factors associated with both favorable and poor outcomes. Patient demographics have changed over the course of the registry with a decrease in the percentage of white recipients from a high of 72% in 1987 to less than 43% in 2007. The percentage of living donors decreased to its lowest point in 2007 at 37%. Acute rejection rates continue to decline with improvements in short- and long-term graft survival. Recently, NAPRTCS data have been used as a source of benchmark data for pediatric kidney transplant centers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.126
Threshold uncertainty score0.251

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.256 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations184
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207