MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Renal Complications Following Heajt Transplantation in Children: A Single-Center Study

2003· article· en· W2022688490 on OpenAlexaff
Véronique Phan, Lori J. West, Derek Stephens, Diane Hébert

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsHospital for Sick ChildrenSickKids FoundationUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionTransplantationSingle CenterPediatricsRetrospective cohort studyUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Renal dysfunction is common following heajt transplantation (Tx) in adults, but little is known in children. Thus, a retrospective chajt review was performed in children who underwent heajt Tx at the Hospital for Sick Children between April 1994 and April 1999. The inclusion criteria were: age <18 years, survival >1 year post-Tx. The Schwajtz formula was used to calculate glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Decreased GFR was defined as <80 mL/min/1.73 m2. Changes in GFR were analyzed using Repeated Measures Analysis of Variance. Forty-one eligible children were included. The mean age at Tx was 7 years (range: 1 month to 16.7 years). The mean F/UP was 33 +/- 17 months, with 32/41 patients followed for at least 24 months. The GFR was decreased in 42% pre-Tx, and in 7.3% at the last F/UP (p = 0.0001). GFR did not decline significantly with time after Tx; in fact, GFR increased in the first year and remained stable afterwards (p = 0.0002). Acute renal dysfunction (ARD) episodes were common (12/41 children). Hypertension was diagnosed in 76% of children during the first year post-Tx, but persisted in only 11 (27%). GFR improves in the majority of children following heajt Tx. ARD episodes are frequent in the post-Tx period. Hypertension is common but does not persist.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.279 · 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

Citations30
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207