Protocol Core Needle Biopsy and Histologic Chronic Allograft Damage Index (CADI) as Surrogate End Point for Long-Term Graft Survival in Multicenter Studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study is an investigation of whether a protocol biopsy may be used as surrogate to late graft survival in multicenter renal transplantation trials. During two mycophenolate mofetil trials, 621 representative protocol biopsies were obtained at baseline, 1 yr, and 3 yr. The samples were coded and evaluated blindly by two pathologists, and Chronic Allograft Damage Index (CADI) score was constructed. At 1 yr, only 20% of patients had elevated (>l.5 mg/100 ml) serum creatinine, whereas 60% of the biopsies demonstrated an elevated (>2.0) CADI score. The mean CADI score at baseline, 1.3 +/- 1.1, increased to 3.3 +/- 1.8 at 1 yr and to 4.1 +/- 2.2 at 3 yr. The patients at 1 yr were divided into three groups, those with CADI <2, between 2 and 3.9, and >4.0, the first two groups having normal (1.4 +/- 0.3 and 1.5 +/- 0.6 mg/dl) and the third group pathologic (1.9 +/- 0.8 mg/dl) serum creatinine. At 3 yr, there were no lost grafts in the low CADI group, six lost grafts (4.6%) in the in the elevated CADI group, and 17 lost grafts (16.7%) in the high CADI group (P < 0.001). One-year histologic CADI score predicts graft survival even when the graft function is still normal. This observation makes it possible to use CADI as a surrogate end point in prevention trials and to identify the patients at risk for intervention trials.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.077 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".