MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Cancer Incidence Among Canadian Kidney Transplant Recipients

2007· article· en· W2016750175 on OpenAlex
Paul J. Villeneuve, DE Schaubel, SS Fenton, FA Shepherd, Ying Jiang, Y Mao

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoToronto General HospitalPublic Health Agency of CanadaToronto Public HealthPublic Health Ontario
FundersCanadian Society of TransplantationKidney Foundation of CanadaCanadian Society of Nephrology
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationPopulationKidney transplantationCancerCancer registryIncidence (geometry)Internal medicineKidney cancerCohortEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A number of studies have observed increased cancer incidence rates among individuals who have received renal transplants. Generally, however, these studies have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, short follow-up intervals or focused on only one cancer site. We conducted a nationwide population-based study of 11,155 patients who underwent kidney transplantation between 1981 and 1998. Incident cancers were identified up to December 31, 1999, through record linkage to the Canadian Cancer Registry. Patterns of cancer incidence in the cohort were compared to the Canadian general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). We examined variations in risk according time since transplantation, year of transplantation and age at transplantation. In our patient population, we observed a total of 778 incident cancers versus 313.2 expected (SIR = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.3–2.7). Site-specific SIRs were highest for cancer of the lip (SIR = 31.3, 95% CI = 23.5–40.8), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (SIR = 8.8, 95% CI = 7.4–10.5), and kidney cancer (SIR = 7.3, 95% CI = 5.7–9.2). SIRs for NHL and cancer of the lip and kidney were highest and among transplant patients. This study confirms previous findings of increased risks of posttransplant cancer. Our findings underscore the need for increased vigilance among kidney transplant recipients for cancers at sites where there are no population-based screening programs in place. A number of studies have observed increased cancer incidence rates among individuals who have received renal transplants. Generally, however, these studies have been limited by relatively small sample sizes, short follow-up intervals or focused on only one cancer site. We conducted a nationwide population-based study of 11,155 patients who underwent kidney transplantation between 1981 and 1998. Incident cancers were identified up to December 31, 1999, through record linkage to the Canadian Cancer Registry. Patterns of cancer incidence in the cohort were compared to the Canadian general population using standardized incidence ratios (SIRs). We examined variations in risk according time since transplantation, year of transplantation and age at transplantation. In our patient population, we observed a total of 778 incident cancers versus 313.2 expected (SIR = 2.5, 95% CI = 2.3–2.7). Site-specific SIRs were highest for cancer of the lip (SIR = 31.3, 95% CI = 23.5–40.8), non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL) (SIR = 8.8, 95% CI = 7.4–10.5), and kidney cancer (SIR = 7.3, 95% CI = 5.7–9.2). SIRs for NHL and cancer of the lip and kidney were highest and among transplant patients. This study confirms previous findings of increased risks of posttransplant cancer. Our findings underscore the need for increased vigilance among kidney transplant recipients for cancers at sites where there are no population-based screening programs in place.

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.

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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.271
Teacher spread0.263 · 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