MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

New onset diabetes mellitus post‐kidney transplantation

2006· article· en· W2011947272 on OpenAlexaff
Mathew B. Kiberd, R. Panek, Bryce Kiberd

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDiabetes mellitusKidney transplantationInternal medicinePopulationTransplantationSurgeryEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The study explores the prevalence of unrecognized diabetes mellitus (DM), the incidence and risk factors new onset diabetes mellitus (NODM) and determines whether patient survival differs between patients with transient (NODM that resolves) compared with those with fixed NODM. This is a single center review of solitary kidney recipients transplanted from 1993 to 2003. Of the 381 patients without DM pre-transplant, 111 met criteria for DM post. Of these 17 were unrecognized to have DM, 31 had transient (resolved) NODM and 64 had fixed NODM. In a multivariate analysis, age, body mass index, repeat transplant and rejection were risk factors for NODM. In a separate analysis of only fixed NODM, tacrolimus use showed a trend for an independent association (HR 1.7 95% CI 0.95-2.9). NODM patient survival was comparable to non-diabetic recipients even up to 10 yr; however, excess mortality started to be seen in the fixed NODM subgroup at late follow up. Use of more stringent DM criteria results in a population with relatively good intermediate term survival and allows detection and treatment of early disease. Transient NODM represents approximately one third of NODM and has a relatively good prognosis.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.312 · 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.

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

Citations17
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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