Yield of Screening Colonoscopy in Renal Transplant Candidates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the most common cause of death among patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing maintenance dialysis. Renal transplantation offers a survival advantage to patients with end-stage renal disease; it is also associated with a three- to fivefold increase in the risk of developing a neoplasm. OBJECTIVE: To determine the yield of screening colonoscopy among patients with chronic kidney disease who were considered for renal transplantation. METHODS: Patients were included if they were ≥50 years of age, had chronic kidney disease and were being considered for renal transplantation. They underwent a screening colonoscopy that was performed as part of their pretransplant workup. Data from December 2008 to May 2014 were collected retrospectively for all eligible patients. RESULTS: During the study period, 433 patients were considered for renal transplantation. Of these, 170 underwent colonoscopies as part of their pretransplant workup. One was excluded because of previous history of colon cancer. Of the 169 procedures performed, ≥1 polyp(s) was diagnosed in 24%. The most common pathological diagnoses were hyperplastic polyp or normal colonic tissue. Fifteen (37%) patients had tubular adenomas and one patient had a sessile serrated adenoma. Advanced adenomas, defined as villous, tubulovillous or high-grade dysplasia, were found in four patients. Adenocarcinoma was diagnosed in one patient. CONCLUSION: In a population of asymptomatic potential kidney transplant recipients ≥50 years of age, the prevalence of colorectal adenomatous polyps was 24%. Colonoscopy appeared to be useful as a screening tool in potential transplant recipients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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".