MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prognostic Value of Myocardial Perfusion Studies in Patients with End-Stage Renal Disease Assessed for Kidney or Kidney-Pancreas Transplantation

2003· review· en· W2111544467 on OpenAlexaff
Christian G. Rabbat, Darin Treleaven, J. David Russell, D Ludwin

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2003
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationKidney diseaseInternal medicineCoronary artery diseaseKidney transplantationCardiologyKidneyEnd stage renal diseasePancreas transplantationScintigraphyMyocardial infarctionDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The prognostic utility of myocardial perfusion studies (MPS) such as thallium scintigraphy and dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE) for stratifying cardiac risk among candidates for kidney or kidney-pancreas transplantation is uncertain. This study is a meta-analysis to determine the prognostic significance of MPS results on future myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac death (CD) in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) assessed for kidney or kidney-pancreas transplantation. MEDLINE was searched using combinations of MeSH headings and text words for transplantation, coronary artery disease, prognosis, end-stage renal disease, and noninvasive cardiac testing (nuclear scintigraphy and DSE) for primary studies. Studies were included if they reported MPS results and cardiac events in patients assessed for kidney or kidney-pancreas transplantation. Methodologic study quality and outcome data were independently abstracted in duplicate by two researchers. The relative risks (RR) of MI and CD were calculated using a random effects model. Twelve articles met all inclusion criteria; 12 studies reported CD, and 9 reported MI. In eight studies, thallium scintigraphy was used (four with pharmacologic stress, four with exercise stress), whereas four used DSE. When compared with negative tests, positive tests had a significantly increased RR of MI (2.73 [95% CI, 1.25 to 5.97]; P = 0.01) and CD (2.92 [95% CI, 1.66 to 5.12]; P < 0.001). Subgroup analyses of studies of diabetic patients indicated that positive tests were associated with a RR of CD 3.95 (95% CI, 1.48 to 10.5; P = 0.006) and a RR of MI 2.68 (95% CI, 0.95 to 7.57; P = 0.06) when compared with negative tests. In studies evaluating mixed populations of diabetic and nondiabetic patients, positive tests were associated with a RR of CD 2.52 (95% CI, 1.25 to 5.08; P = 0.01) and with a RR of MI 2.79 (95% CI, 0.85 to 9.21; P = 0.09) when compared with a negative test. The presence of reversible defects was associated with an increased risk of MI in diabetic patients and of CD in both subgroups; fixed defects were associated with an increased risk of CD but not MI. It is concluded that positive MPS are useful in identifying patients with significantly increased risk of future MI and CD in both diabetic and nondiabetic ESRD patients.

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)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.054
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.120

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.054
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.026
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.054
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.327 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations173
Published2003
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207