Transplantation of pediatric renal allografts from donors less than 10 kg
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Few transplant programs use kidneys from donors with body weight (BW) < 10 kg. We hypothesized that pediatric en bloc transplants from donors with BW < 10 kg would provide similar transplant outcomes to larger grafts. All pediatric en bloc renal transplants performed at our center between 2001 and 2017 were reviewed (N = 28). Data were stratified by smaller (donor BW < 10 kg; n=11) or larger donors (BW > 10 kg; n=17). Renal volume was assessed during follow-up with ultrasound. Demographic characteristics were similar between the 2 groups of recipients. After mean follow-up of 44 months (smaller donors) and 124 months (larger donors), graft and patient outcomes were similar between groups. Serum creatinine at 1, 3, and 5 years was no different between groups. At 1 day posttransplant, mean total renal volume in the smaller donors was 28 ± 9 mm 3 vs 45 ± 12 mm 3 ( P < .01). By 3 weeks, it was 53 ± 19 mm 3 (smaller donors) versus 73 ± 19 mm 3 (larger donors) ( P = NS). Complication rates were similar between both groups with 1 case of venous thrombosis in the smaller group. With experience, outcomes are equivalent to those from larger pediatric donors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".