Risk of Nephrectomy in Previous Living Kidney Donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief Background For patients with a solitary kidney, such as living kidney donors, the surgical treatment of renal tumors may result in loss of function of the remaining kidney. Methods We conducted a retrospective, matched cohort study to determine the long-term risk of partial or total nephrectomy in previous living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors. We reviewed the predonation charts for all living kidney donors in Ontario, Canada between 1992 and 2010 and linked this information to provincial healthcare databases. Results We matched 2119 donors to 21190 nondonors from the general population with similar baseline health. The median length of follow-up was 9.5 years (maximum 21.7 years). The rate of nephrectomy in follow-up was lower in donors versus nondonors (0 vs. 1.78 per 10000 person years; P = 0.037). In a subset of 1773 donors matched to 1773 healthy nondonors with renal imaging (median follow-up 7.6 years, maximum 21.0 years), the rate of nephrectomy was not statistically different in donors versus nondonors (0 vs. ≤5 per 10000 person years; P > 0.08). Conclusion No living kidney donor in our cohort received a partial or total nephrectomy of their remaining kidney during our follow-up period. Although we will continue to follow people in this study, these interim results are reassuring for the safety of kidney donation. The authors determine the long-term risk of partial or total nephrectomy in prior living kidney donors compared to healthy nondonors. The rate of nephrectomy was not statistically different in donors vs nondonors and these interim results confirm the safety of kidney donation.
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".