Recipient‐related predictors of kidney transplantation outcomes in the elderly
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether in old people with end-stage renal disease kidney transplantation is superior to dialysis therapy. METHODS: We compared mortality rates between kidney transplant recipients (KTRs) and the general population across different age categories. We also examined patient and allograft survival in 15 667 elderly KTRs (65-<90 yr old, 36% female) within three age subgroups (65-<70, 70-<75, and ≥75 yr). RESULTS: The rise in the relative risk of death in older age groups was substantially less in KTRs than in the general population, that is, 1.8 and 2.0 vs. 21.4 and 76.6 in those aged 65-<75 and ≥75 yr, respectively, compared with 15- to <65-yr-old people (reference group). In 65- to <70-yr-old KTRs, obesity (BMI>30 kg/m(2) ) was associated with 19% higher risk of graft failure (HR: 1.19 [1.07-1.33], p = 0.002). Diabetes was a predictor of worse patient survival in all age groups but poorer allograft outcome in the youngest age group (65-<70 yr old) only. None of the examined risk factors affected allograft outcome in the oldest group (≥75 yr old) although there was a 49% lower trend of graft failure in very old Hispanic recipients (HR: 0.51 [0.26-1.01], p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Kidney transplantation may attenuate the age-associated increase in mortality, and its superior survival gain is most prominent in the oldest recipients (≥75 yr old). The potential protective effect of kidney transplantation on longevity in the elderly deserves further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".