How to stent the ureter after kidney transplantation in children?—A comparison of two methods of urinary drainage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ureteral stenting after pediatric renal transplantation serves to prevent obstruction and urinary leakage, but can also cause complications. This study compares the complication rates of both methods. Data were retrospectively collected at Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, the Netherlands (splint group, n = 61) and Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto, Canada (JJ catheter group, n = 50). Outcome measures included urological interventions and incidence of UTIs during the first 3 months post-transplantation. The splint was removed after a median of 9 (IQR 8-12), the JJ catheter after 42 (IQR 36-50) days. Seven (11.5%) children in the splint group needed at least one urological re-intervention versus two in the JJ catheter group (P-value .20). UTIs developed in 19 children (31.1%) in the splint group and in twenty-five (50.0%) children in the JJ catheter group (P-value .04), with a total number of 27 vs. 57 UTIs (P-value .02). Nine (33.3%) vs. 35 (61.4%) of these, respectively, occurred during the presence of the splint (P-value <.001). Children with a JJ catheter developed more UTIs than children with a splint; the latter, however, tended to require more re-interventions. Modification of either method is needed to find the best way to stent the ureter.
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".