Focal segmental glomerular sclerosis in renal transplant recipients: predicting early disease recurrence may prolong allograft function
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recurrence of focal segmental glomerular sclerosis (FSGS) in the allograft following renal transplantation can be graft threatening. To assess risk factors associated with FSGS recurrence, we analyzed 22 patients with FSGS who underwent transplantation between 1996 and 2004. Five patients (Group I, 23%) developed FSGS post-transplantation. Of these patients, 60% had undergone bilateral nephrectomy (BN) for progressive disease compared with none of the patients that were free of recurrence (Group II) (p = 0.0006). Other factors linked with recurrent FSGS were time to first dialysis (Group I: 3.1 +/- 1.1 yr vs. Group II: 11.9 +/- 1.9 yr; p = 0.03), pre-transplant proteinuria (Group I: 7.0 +/- 1.8 g/d vs. Group II: 2.5 +/- 0.7 g/d; p = 0.02), young age at transplantation (p = 0.09) and female sex (Group I: 80% vs. Group II: 24%; p = 0.021). Eighty percent of Group I patients received a living related transplant vs. 24% in Group II (p = 0.021). All grafts continue to function at last follow-up with comparable serum creatinines. Overall, post-transplant FSGS recurrence may be associated with BN, severity of pre-transplant FSGS, female gender, and living donation. These patients should be monitored closely for early recurrence and may benefit from early plasmapheresis to restore and facilitate long-term graft function.
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".