Recipient age and risk of chronic allograft nephropathy in primary deceased donor kidney transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Single center and registry data studies have had conflicting results regarding the impact of recipient age on chronic allograft nephropathy (CAN). We tested the hypothesis that advanced recipient age is a risk factor for graft failure due to CAN. All patients who underwent primary deceased donor kidney transplant between January 1, 1995 and December 31, 2000 recorded in the United Network of Organ Sharing (UNOS) database were analyzed for the occurrence of death censored graft loss and by two different definitions of graft loss due to CAN. Kaplan-Meier analysis based on the recipient age, and Cox proportional hazard regression was used to estimate the independent effect of recipient age on the three endpoints of interest. For all endpoints, after age of 9 years, the risk of graft loss declined with each successive decade increase in age. This pattern of risk was similar for both Caucasian and African-American recipients, although for any given age the risk of graft loss was always higher in African-American recipients. Analysis of UNOS data does not support the hypothesis that advanced recipient age is a risk factor for CAN.
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 | 0.002 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".