Evaluating the Survival Benefit of Kidney Retransplantation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The magnitude of the survival benefit associated with kidney retransplantation has not been well studied. METHODS: Using data from the Canadian Organ Replacement Register (CORR), we studied patients (n=3,067) initiating renal replacement therapy during 1981-1998 who had received a transplant and experienced graft failure (GF). Such patients were followed until death, loss to follow-up or the end of the observation period (December 31, 1998). Using Cox regression, we estimated the post-GF covariate-adjusted hazard ratio (HR) for retransplant versus dialysis, and determined whether the contrast differed across patient subgroups. Through nonproportional hazards models, we also examine patterns in the retransplant/dialysis HR with time following retransplant. RESULTS: Overall, retransplantation is associated with a covariate-adjusted 50% reduction in mortality, relative to remaining on dialysis (HR=0.50; P<0.0001). This benefit is most pronounced in the 18- to 59-year age group. Retransplanted patients were at significantly higher risk of death relative to patients on dialysis only during the first month posttransplant (HR=1.66; P=0.047), and experienced significantly reduced mortality thereafter. CONCLUSIONS: Following primary graft failure, retransplantation is associated with significantly reduced mortality rates among Canadian end-stage renal disease patients. Further study should be undertaken to assess the applicability of our findings to other patient populations.
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 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 | 0.000 | 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 it