Congestive Heart Failure in Renal Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cardiovascular disease (CVD) is the major cause of death in renal transplant recipients (RTR). Several cohort studies have examined CVD in RTR, but none have addressed the development of congestive heart failure (CHF). CHF would hypothetically be a frequent and prognostically important event in RTR. A retrolective cohort study was, therefore, conducted in two Canadian centers to describe the incidence, risk factors for, and interrelationships between de novo CHF, de novo ischemic heart disease (IHD), and mortality in 638 consecutive adult RTR who were free of cardiac disease at 1 yr posttransplant. Detailed clinic and hospital records were available for 99% of patients. Median follow-up was 7 yr (range, 1 to 28 yr). De novo CHF occurred as frequently as de novo IHD (1.26 versus 1.22 events/100 patient-years, respectively) and appeared to carry a similar prognosis (relative risk for death, 1.78 [confidence interval, 1.21 to 2.61] for CHF versus 1.50 [1.05 to 2.13] for IHD). The incidence of CHF was considerably higher than that in the Framingham cohort, whereas the incidence of IHD was not, suggesting that renal transplantation might correspond more to a state of "accelerated heart failure" than to "accelerated atherosclerosis." Age, diabetes, gender, BP, and anemia were identified as independent risk factors for de novo CHF, whereas age, diabetes, gender, BP, and rejection were independent risk factors for de novo IHD. Optimal strategies for treatment of BP and anemia in RTR will need to be determined in randomized controlled 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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".