MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2144069368 · doi:10.1002/micr.20260

Kidney transplantation procedures in rats: Assessments, complications, and management

2006· article· en· W2144069368 on OpenAlex

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

VenueMicrosurgery · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersAmerican College of Surgeons
KeywordsMedicineUrinary systemAnastomosisTransplantationSurgeryMicrosurgeryThrombosisKidney transplantationKidneyComplicationUrologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Kidney transplantation in rats is an experimental model often used for the development of general microsurgical or transplantation techniques, for immunologic studies, and for analyzing transplant-associated long-term arterial blood-pressure changes. The aim of the present study was to analyze different surgical techniques of kidney transplantation in rats, with emphasis on minimizing surgical complications and establishing guidelines for their prevention and management. Complications were categorized into general (e.g., core body temperature drop, ischemic time) and surgically related vascular and urinary tract complications. In conclusion, a significant reduction of the complication rate in renal transplantation in rats can be achieved by placing the animal on a heating pad at an appropriate temperature. To reduce the risk of vascular thrombosis, ice-cold saline with heparin and careful flushing of the donor kidneys are recommended. Vascular complications can be avoided by performing "end-to-end" anastomosis techniques. The use of stents and cannulas in the urinary tract is associated with a high risk of urinary tract obstruction, and therefore is not recommended.

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)0.000
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 score0.115
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.270 · 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