Long-term Outcomes of Living Kidney Donation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In an effort to improve outcomes associated with living kidney donation, the Kidney Diseases Improving Global Outcomes (KDIGO) assembled a Work Group to develop comprehensive guidelines addressing the evaluation and care of living kidney donors. We conducted this systematic review to inform guideline development. METHODS: We searched Ovid Medline, Ovid Embase, and the Cochrane Library to identify systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials, and observational studies published through September of 2014 and consulted the KDIGO Expert Work Group. We extracted data from systematic reviews and observational studies with sample size over 100 and mean follow-up time of at least 5 years. Studies had to have an adequate comparison group that excludes subjects with contraindications to kidney donation. RESULTS: For the long-term donor outcomes, we extracted 5 systematic reviews and 40 observational studies. Moderate grade evidence reveals an association between living kidney donation and greater risk of end-stage renal disease. This association is true for donors of all races with African American donors sustaining the greatest increase in absolute risk. We found very low grade evidence that kidney donation is associated with lower kidney function, proteinuria, hypertension, and psychosocial outcomes. Consistent evidence from 3 studies reveals that donors are at higher risk for preeclampsia and gestational hypertension with postdonation pregnancies and compared with healthy matched nondonors. CONCLUSIONS: Living kidney donation appears to be associated with a small absolute increase in risk of end-stage renal disease, hypertension, and pregnancy complications, such as preeclampsia and gestational hypertension.
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 | 0.017 | 0.077 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".