MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2556140075 · doi:10.1097/txd.0000000000000631

The World's Youngest Cadaveric Kidney Transplant: Medical, Surgical and Ethical Issues

2016· article· en· W2556140075 on OpenAlexaff
Abdallah S. Daar, Nabil M. Al Lawati

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation Direct · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCadaveric spasmSurgeryAgenesis of the corpus callosumKidney transplantationEthical issuesTransplantationGeneral surgeryPediatricsCorpus callosumPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: We report here the first successful transplant from a preterm cadaveric donor. This was performed in November 1994. The donor, who had been born at about 33 weeks of gestation, was diagnosed as having agenesis of the corpus callosum. The transplant was carried out 10 days after the donor's birth. The recipient was a 17-month-old boy with a diagnosis of Denys-Drash syndrome (WT1 mutation). METHOD: We describe and analyze the ethical, social, cultural, medical and surgical issues encountered and how these were addressed. The major issue of determining death in a beating heart, very young donor was dealt with in the absence of worldwide experience and guidelines. RESULTS: The transplanted recipient has lived with the grafted pair of kidneys for more then 22 years. He has led a relatively normal life. CONCLUSIONS: It is possible for immature preterm deceased donor kidneys to be transplanted into a 17-month-old recipient and for the grafted kidneys to grow with the recipient and function for 22 years. There were challenges in ethically determining the death of the donor, in surgical techniques to obviate potential surgical complications, and in postoperative care of the recipient, but these were managed successfully.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.563
Threshold uncertainty score0.989

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
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

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation DirectSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207