MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Donation After Circulatory Death (DCD) Renal Allografts: The Impact of Donor Age On Recipient Outcome in a Contemporary Canadian Cohort.

2014· article· en· W2772013124 on OpenAlexaffabout
Neal Rowe, Melissa Huynh, Philippe D. Violette, Corinne Weernink, Alp Şener, Patrick Luke

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRenal functionCohortCreatinineDonationSurgeryOrgan donationTransplantationKidneyKidney transplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Donation after Circulatory Death (DCD) renal allografts continue to be an under-utilized organ source. While DCD grafts have comparable outcomes to neurological determination of death (NDD) grafts, the impact of donor age has been addressed in only a limited number of studies. The aim of our study is to compare patient outcome in recipients of DCD allografts from donors greater than 50 years of age to those 50 years of age and younger. Methods: Institutional review board approved our study. 118 kidney transplant recipients received DCD allografts at our institution between July 2006 and September 2013. Recipient outcome variables (creatinine clearance (CrCl), readmission rate, length of hospital stay (LOS), or delayed graft function (DGF) ) were compared for donors older than age 50 and 50 years of age or less. Student t-test and Pearson chi-square test were used in analysis. Results: Mean recipient age was 43.4 years (SD =14.5) and median follow-up was 20.5 months (range 1.1 to 86.6). Recipients of kidney transplants from DCD donors 51 years of age and older demonstrated lower CrCl at 1 month (50.3 mL/min vs. 72.7 mL/min, p<0.001), 3 months (62.5 mL/min vs 87.9 ml/min, p = 0.002), and 1 year (66.2 mL/min vs 87.8 mL/min, p = 0.013). The two groups did not differ with regard to delayed graft function χ2 =0.573, p = 0.706, graft loss χ2 = 0.779, p = 1.00, or hospital readmission χ2 = 0.294, p = 0.355. Hospital LOS was equivalent between the two groups (13.9 days vs. 13.8 days, p = 0.929). Recipients of older DCD kidneys (>50 years of age) tended to be older (59.2 vs. 49.3, p <0.001). Conclusions: Recipients of DCD kidneys had similar short-term outcomes (DGF, LOS) between the two age categories. Recipients of the allografts from donors greater than 50 years of age demonstrated lower creatinine clearance at one year. Longer follow-up is required to determine long-term survival of these allografts.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.166
Threshold uncertainty score0.335

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.265 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207