MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Effect of donor pneumoperitoneum on early allograft perfusion following renal transplantation in pediatric patients: An intraoperative Doppler ultrasound study

2007· article· en· W2103733648 on OpenAlexaff
Sumit Davé, Walid A. Farhat, Kenneth T. Pace, Oscar M. Navarro, Diane Hébert, Antoine E. Khoury

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationUltrasoundPneumoperitoneumPerfusionKidney transplantationDoppler ultrasoundRadiologySurgeryLaparoscopy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decreased perfusion and trauma during laparoscopic harvesting are proposed causative factors for DGF and rejection in children following renal transplantation with laparoscopic donor nephrectomy (LDN) allograft. We performed a retrospective review of 11 children who underwent LDN transplant and 11 preceding patients who underwent ODN transplant. Intraoperative DUS findings, creatinine values and clearance, time to nadir creatinine and AR episodes were compared. There were no significant differences in the BMI, vascular anatomy, side of nephrectomy, or warm ischemia time in the two groups. Mean follow-up duration was 11.4 and 30.4 months in LDN and ODN groups. DUS showed initial turbulent flow in five of the LDN and four of the ODN group with an average RI of 0.59 and 0.66 in the ODN and LDN groups, respectively (NS). Three patients in the ODN group had an abnormal RI compared to none in the LDN group (p = 0.034). The creatinine values, creatinine clearances (at 24 h, one, four wk and last follow-up) and AR episodes were similar in both groups. Pneumoperitoneum during LDN does not appear to have an adverse impact on early graft reperfusion.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.006
GPT teacher head0.269
Teacher spread0.263 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations9
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207