MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Protocol Biopsies in Renal Transplantation

2012· article· en· W2136890491 on OpenAlex
David N. Rush

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueBENTHAM SCIENCE PUBLISHERS eBooks · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Diseases and Glomerulopathies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaHealth Sciences Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSubclinical infectionTransplantationBiopsyImmunosuppressionKidney transplantationRenal biopsyPathologyChronic allograft nephropathyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protocol biopsies in renal transplantation are those that are procured at predetermined times post renal transplantation, regardless of renal function. These biopsies have been useful to study the natural history of the transplanted kidney as they have detected unexpected - i.e. "subclinical" pathology. The most significant subclinical pathologies that have been detected with protocol biopsies have been acute lesions, such as cellular and antibody mediated rejection, and chronic lesions, such as interstitial fibrosis and tubular atrophy, and transplant glomerulopathy. The potential benefit of early recognition of the above lesions is that their early treatment may result in improved long-term outcomes. Conversely, the identification of normal histology on a protocol biopsy, may inform us about the safety of reduction in overall immunosuppression. Our centre, as well as others, is attempting to develop non-invasive methods of immune monitoring of renal transplant patients. However, we believe that until such methods have been developed and validated, the protocol biopsy will remain an indispensable tool for the complete care of renal transplant 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.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.189
Threshold uncertainty score0.355

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.002
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 head0.026
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.289 · 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