MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2604856679 · doi:10.1111/tri.12964

Early experience with hypothermic machine perfusion of living donor kidneys - a retrospective study

2017· article· en· W2604856679 on OpenAlexafffund
Mike Moser, Nathan Ginther, Yigang Luo, Gavin Beck, Ronn Ginther, Marla Ewen, Rhianna Matsche-Neufeld, Ahmed Shoker, Grzegorz Sawicki

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplant International · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersLondon Health Sciences Centre
KeywordsMachine perfusionMedicineRenal functionPerfusionCreatinineUrologyKidneyKidney transplantationAnesthesiaTransplantationSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although hypothermic machine perfusion (HMP) has been shown to be beneficial to deceased donor kidneys, the effect of HMP on living donor kidneys (LDK) is unknown. LDK are subjected to minutes of normothermic ischemia at the time of recovery. Comparison of 16 LDK preserved by HMP with 16 LDK preserved by static cold storage (SCS). Outcomes of interest are resistive indices (RI), both while on HMP and postoperatively, and creatinine clearance (CrCl). Injury markers NGAL and LDH were seen in the perfusate of LDK in amounts similar to what is found for donation after neurological determination of death kidneys. Compared to SCS kidneys, CrCl was significantly higher in the HMP group from days 2 through 7 post-transplant [ie: day 7 (78.8 ± 5.4 vs. 54.0 ± 4.6 ml/min, P = 0.005)]. CrCl at 1 year was higher in the HMP group (81.2 ± 5.8 vs. 70.0 ± 5.3 ml/min, P = 0.03). Early post-transplant RI was significantly lower in the HMP group (0.61 ± 0.02 vs. 0.71 ± 0.02, P < 0.0001). Our data support the assertion that injury does occur during LDK procurement and suggest that some of this injury may be reversed with HMP, resulting in more favorable early RI and graft function compared to SCS kidneys.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.794

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.292
Teacher spread0.277 · 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 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

Citations20
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplant InternationalSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207