MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Comparison Between the Prevalences of Endoscopic Colic Lesions among Liver and Kidney Transplant Candidates

2012· article· en· W2316299427 on OpenAlexaffabout
Jeanne‐Marie Giard, Amélie Therrien, Mickaël Bouin

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineGastroenterologyColonoscopyTransplantationPopulationLiver transplantationKidney transplantationIncidence (geometry)Colorectal cancerCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction: Among transplant surgeries, liver and kidney are most frequently performed worldwide. An increased incidence of neoplasia is noted among the end-stage renal disease population and also among liver and renal transplant recipients. We previously found high prevalence of colic lesions in these populations but no comparisons between these groups has been made. Methods: Retrospective study of all patients transplanted (kidney and liver) from January 2007 to December 2009 at Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Montréal (Quebec, Canada). Patients transplanted for a second time or for a fulminant hepatitis were excluded. Data regarding demographics, colorectal cancer risk factors, comorbidities, the indication and results of every colonoscopy performed in the five years preceding transplantation were collected. Results: 159 renal and 147 liver transplant candidates were included. More colonoscopies were performed among liver transplant candidates (58,5 vs 40,3 % p< 0,05) and they had more inflammatory bowel diseases (7,5 vs 0,6% p< 0,05). Renal transplant candidates who benefitted from a colonoscopy had a greater BMI than liver transplant candidates (28,314 ± 5,275 vs 25,957 ± 5,765 kg/m2 p< 0,05). No significant differences were noted regarding other comorbidities or the age at the time of colonoscopy and transplantation. The prevalence of polyps was similar between the renal and liver transplant candidates (32,8 vs 35,6%, NS). No significant differences were noted for proximal polyps prevalence (above the splenic angle, 61,9 vs 40,0% among renal and liver transplant candidates respectively, p = 0,21). Histologically, among patients with polyps, 66,7% had adenomas vs 32,3% among renal and liver transplant candidates respectively. Liver transplant candidates had an occurrence of hyperplastic polyps of 36,7% vs 9,5% among the renal transplant candidates with polyps. There was one patient with high grade dysplasia among the liver transplant candidates; no high grade dysplasia was found among the renal transplant candidates. The prevalence of polyps among patients younger than 50 years old was 26,3 vs 15,8% among renal and liver transplant candidates respectively. Conclusion: The high prevalence of polyps is similar among renal and liver transplant candidates. The high frequency of proximal lesions, mainly among renal transplant candidates, justifies performing a total colonoscopy in these patients. Our results emphasize the indication of a screening colonoscopy among the renal and liver transplant candidates.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.017

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207