Risk of serious gastrointestinal bleeding in living kidney donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Individuals with moderate-to-severe reduced renal function have greater risk of gastrointestinal bleeding than those with normal renal function. We conducted a retrospective matched cohort study to assess whether living kidney donors share a similar risk. We reviewed pre-donation charts for living kidney donations from 1992 to 2009 in Ontario, Canada, and linked this information to healthcare databases. We selected healthy non-donors from the general population and matched ten non-donors to every donor. Of the 2009 donors and 20,090 matched non-donors, none had evidence of gastrointestinal bleeding prior to cohort entry. The cohort was followed for a median of 8.4 yr (maximum 19.7 yr; loss to follow-up <7%). There was no significant difference in the rate of hospitalization with gastrointestinal bleeding in donors compared to non-donors (18.5 vs. 14.9 events per 10,000 person-years; rate ratio 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.85-1.81). Similar results were obtained when we assessed the time to first hospitalization with gastrointestinal bleeding (hazard ratio 1.25, 95% CI 0.87-1.79). In conclusion, we found living kidney donation was not associated with a higher risk of hospitalization with gastrointestinal bleeding. These results are reassuring for the safety of the practice.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".