MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Meta-Analysis: Risk for Hypertension in Living Kidney Donors

2006· review· en· W2077571864 on OpenAlex

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.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Internal Medicine · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of OttawaWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBlood pressureDiastoleInternal medicinePulse pressureSurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The risk for hypertension after kidney donation remains uncertain. PURPOSE: To see whether normotensive adults who donate a kidney develop higher blood pressure and risk for hypertension compared with nondonor adults acting as control participants. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Science Citation Index were searched from 1966 until November 2005 for articles published in any language. Reference lists of pertinent articles were also reviewed. STUDY SELECTION: The authors selected studies involving 10 or more healthy normotensive adults who donated a kidney and in whom blood pressure was assessed at least 1 year later. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers independently abstracted data on study and donor characteristics, blood pressure measurements, outcomes, and prognostic features. Comparison data were abstracted from donor studies with control participants. Thirty primary authors provided additional data. DATA SYNTHESIS: Forty-eight studies from 28 countries followed a total of 5145 donors. Before surgery, the average age of donors was 41 years, the average systolic blood pressure was 121 mm Hg, and the average diastolic blood pressure was 77 mm Hg for all studies. In controlled studies in which the average follow-up was at least 5 years after donation (range, 6 to 13 years), blood pressure was 5 mm Hg higher in donors than in control participants (the weighted mean for systolic blood pressure using 4 studies involving 157 donors and 128 control participants was 6 mm Hg [95% CI, 2 to 11 mm Hg], and the weighted mean for diastolic blood pressure using 5 studies involving 196 donors and 161 control participants was 4 mm Hg [CI, 1 to 7 mm Hg]). There was statistical heterogeneity among the 6 controlled studies that assessed hypertension; an increase in risk was noted in 1 study (relative risk, 1.9 [CI, 1.1 to 3.5]). LIMITATIONS: Most studies were retrospective and did not include control groups that were assembled and followed along with donors. Approximately one third of the donors had incomplete follow-up information. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of the limited studies conducted to date, kidney donors may have a 5-mm Hg increase in blood pressure within 5 to 10 years after donation over that anticipated with normal aging. Future controlled, prospective studies with long periods of follow-up will better delineate safety and identify donors at lowest risk for long-term morbidity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.437
Threshold uncertainty score0.912

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
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 head0.221
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.194 · 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