MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Changing trends in pediatric transplantation: 2001 Annual Report of the North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study

2003· article· en· W2090103023 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Mark R. Benfield, Ruth A. McDonald, Sharon Bartosh, Martin Ho, William Harmon

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineImmunosuppressionTransplantationKidney transplantationPediatricsSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The North American Pediatric Renal Transplant Cooperative Study has collected clinical information on children undergoing a renal transplantation since 1987. This cooperative group now includes over 150 participating medical centers in the United States, Canada, Mexico, and Costa Rica. This report covers the years from 1987 through 2001 and includes data on 7545 renal transplants in 6878 patients. This report demonstrates changing trends in many areas of pediatric transplantation including increasing numbers of African American and Hispanic children receiving transplantation, remarkable improvements in the rate of acute rejection, rejection reversal, and short- and long-term allograft survival. In the most recent cohorts of patients, we now see that 1-yr allograft survival is no different in cadaver donor compared to living donor recipients and in infants compared to all other age groups. However, this analysis also reveals areas of continued challenges including inferior outcomes in African American and adolescent populations, chronic rejection, and the adverse effects of immunosuppression.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.026
Threshold uncertainty score0.051

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations131
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207