Long-Term Medical Outcomes Among Aboriginal Living Kidney Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is unknown whether favorable long-term data on the safety of living kidney donation can be extrapolated to populations at higher risk of chronic kidney disease. Indigenous people (i.e., Aboriginals) have a high prevalence of risk factors for chronic kidney disease and Aboriginal living donor outcomes need to be defined. METHODS: We performed a retrospective cohort study of all 38 Aboriginal donors donating at our center since 1970 and 76 randomly selected white donor controls to determine the long-term rates of hypertension, diabetes, and renal function postdonation. RESULTS: Follow-up was obtained for 91% of both Aboriginal and white donors (mean follow-up approximately 14 years). Hypertension has been diagnosed more frequently among Aboriginal donors (Ab 42% vs. white 19%, P=0.02). Notably, all 11 Aboriginal donors more than 20 years postdonation have developed hypertension. Diabetes has also been diagnosed more frequently among Aboriginal donors (Ab 19% vs. white 2%, P=0.005), including 5 of 11 (45%) more than 20 years postdonation. Follow-up estimated glomerular filtration rate was higher in Aboriginal donors (Ab 77+/-17 vs. white 67+/-13 mL/min/1.73 m, P=0.002) but not significantly different in adjusted analyses. One Aboriginal donor developed end-stage renal disease 14 years postdonation. CONCLUSIONS: Aboriginal living kidney donors at our center have high rates of hypertension and diabetes on long-term follow-up, although renal function is preserved to date. This profile is similar to that of the general unselected Aboriginal population despite detailed medical evaluation before donation. These findings have important implications for donor counseling and may have implications for other high-risk donor populations.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".