Should Hematuria Exclude You as a Kidney Donor?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Identify potential kidney donors with asymptomatic isolated microscopic hematuria and determine if this should be a relative or an absolute contraindication to donation. Methods: Retrospective review of 896 potential kidney donors from 2008-2013 identified 30 donors with isolated microscopic hematuria. Further testing included cysto and in some cases either pre-donation bx or post perfusion bx. Donors who didn't have any identified etiology for hematuria on cysto, were referred for renal bx. Results: 25/30 proceeded with donation. 14/30 patients had abnormal cyst, donated and had post perfusion bx (except 1 donor). 13/16 had normal cyst with pre-donation bx. 13 donors with abnormal cyst and 3 donors with normal cyst but no pre-donation bx had post repercussion bx. A total of 29 bx were available =2 cases of thin membrane disease, 2 cases of focal glomerulosclerosis, 3 cases of IgA nephropathy, 9 cases of age-appropriate glomerulosclerosis and 13 normal renal bx.Conclusion: Our results support our protocol for the potential donor with isolated hematuria provides both an appropriate level of caution for subjects while preventing the unnecessary exclusion of them from the small pool of living donors available.Table: No Caption available.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".