MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2319658220 · doi:10.1097/mot.0b013e3283424ccc

Pancreas transplantation outside the USA: an update

2011· review· en· W2319658220 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Marcelo Perosa, Ugo Boggi, Diego Cantarovich, Paul Robertson

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Organ Transplantation · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTransplantationPancreas transplantationMedicineInternal medicineKidney transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Due to the extreme lack of an international registry of pancreas transplantation, the purpose of this review was to conduct an extensive collection of data on the activity of pancreas transplantation in non-United States areas. RECENT FINDINGS: Over 10 000 pancreas transplants were collected in non-US areas. These countries together account for annual activity of about 1100 pancreas transplants out of which 85% are simultaneous pancreas-kidney transplants. Europe stands with 6766 pancreas transplantation, followed by Latin America with 1945, Canada with 671, Oceania with 499, Asia with 222 and Africa with five. Adding this activity of pancreas transplantation to the US data, we reach the mark of about 32 000 pancreas transplants performed worldwide and the overall activity roughly 'jumps' to approximately 2300 procedures annually. SUMMARY: From the data collected in this article, it is possible to have a current dimension of the pancreas transplantation activity worldwide. This study should serve as a stimulus for the creation of a single international registry and guide future analysis and protocols in the pancreas transplantation field in different continents.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0040.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.002

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 head0.156
GPT teacher head0.416
Teacher spread0.260 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations25
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Organ TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207