MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2054521983 · doi:10.5489/cuaj.10032

Early but not late allograft nephrectomy reduces allosensitization after transplant failure

2011· article· en· W2054521983 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Alp Şener, Anand Khakhar, Christopher Nguan, Andrew A. House, Anthony M. Jevnikar, Patrick Luke

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Urological Association Journal · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of British Columbia Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunosuppressionNephrectomyPrednisoneSurgeryTransplantationUrologyKidneyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Allosensitization is a significant obstacle to retransplantation for patients with primary renal graft failure. METHODS: We assessed the impact of allograft nephrectomy (Group I) and weaning of immunosuppression (Group II) on percent panel reactive antibody (%PRA) at various time points after graft failure in 132 patients with a median follow-up of 47 months. Of these, 68% had allograft nephrectomy while 32% were placed on the waiting list and were either taken off immunosuppression, left on prednisone or on low-dose immunosuppressive therapy. RESULTS: When groups were stratified into early (<6 months) and late (>6 months) graft failure, patients who had transplant nephrectomy for early failure demonstrated a decline in %PRA from 46% at time of graft failure to 27% at last follow-up (p = 0.02); conversely, %PRA continued to rise in Group II experiencing early allograft failure. Both Groups I and II patients with late graft failure maintained elevated %PRA at last follow-up. CONCLUSION: Allograft nephrectomy may play a role in limiting allosensitization in patients with early but not late graft failures.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.216
Teacher spread0.200 · 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

Citations23
Published2011
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Urological Association JournalSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207