Outcomes of Kidney Transplantation Abroad
Bibliographic record
Abstract
CONTEXT: An increasing demand for kidney transplantation has enticed some patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) to venture outside their country of residence, but their posttransplant outcomes may be suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: We compared the risks and clinical outcomes among tourists, or patients who pursue a kidney transplant abroad, versus patients who received a transplant at the Toronto General Hospital (TGH). METHODS: A single-center, 1:3 matched (based on age at transplant, time on dialysis, and year of transplant) cohort study was conducted. Forty-five tourists were matched with 135 domestic transplant recipients between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models were fitted to assess graft and patient outcomes. RESULTS: Among the 45 tourists, the majority (38 of 45) traveled to the Middle East or Far East Asia, and most received living donor kidney transplants (35 of 45). Multivariable Cox proportional hazards models showed that tourists had a higher risk for the composite outcome of acute rejection, death-censored graft failure, or death with graft function (DWGF; hazard ratio [HR] 2.08, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.06-4.07). Tourists also showed a higher risk for the individual end points of acute rejection, DWGF, and posttransplant hospitalizations. CONCLUSION: Patients going abroad for kidney transplantation may have inferior outcomes compared to domestic patients receiving kidney transplants. Patients who are contemplating an overseas transplant need to be aware of the increased risk of adverse posttransplant outcomes and should be appropriately counseled by transplant professionals during the pretransplant evaluation process.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".