MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883905781 · doi:10.2215/cjn.00540118

ABO-Incompatible Kidney Transplant Outcomes

2018· review· en· W2883905781 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Annelies E. de Weerd, Michiel G.H. Betjes

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsABO blood group systemMedicineConfidence intervalObservational studyRelative riskKidney transplantationMeta-analysisInternal medicineTransplantationCohort study

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background and objectives ABO blood group–incompatible kidney transplantation is considered a safe procedure, with noninferior outcomes in large cohort studies. Its contribution to living kidney transplantation programs is substantial and growing. Outcomes compared with center-matched ABO blood group–compatible control patients have not been ascertained. Design, setting, participants, & measurements Comprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Web-of-Science, and Google Scholar. Meta-analyses Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology study guidelines for observational studies and Newcastle Ottawa bias scale were implemented to assess studies. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3. A subgroup analysis on antibody removal technique was performed. Results After identifying 2728 studies addressing ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation, 26 studies were included, describing 1346 unique patients who were ABO-incompatible and 4943 ABO-compatible controls. Risk of bias was low (all studies ≥7 of 9 stars). Baseline patient characteristics revealed no significant differences in immunologic risk parameters. Statistical heterogeneity of studies was low (I 2 0% for graft and patient survival). One-year uncensored graft survival of patients who were ABO-incompatible was 96% versus 98% in ABO-compatible controls (relative risk, 0.97; 95% confidence interval, 0.96 to 0.98; P <0.001). Forty-nine percent of reported causes of death in patients who were ABO-incompatible were of infectious origin, versus only 13% in patients who were ABO-compatible ( P =0.02). Antibody-mediated rejection (3.86; 95% confidence interval, 2.05 to 7.29; P <0.001), severe nonviral infection (1.44; 95% confidence interval, 1.13 to 1.82; P =0.003), and bleeding (1.92; 95% confidence interval, 1.36 to 2.72; P <0.001) were also more common after ABO-incompatible transplantation. Conclusions ABO-incompatible kidney transplant recipients have good outcomes, albeit inferior to center-matched ABO-compatible control patients.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.107
GPT teacher head0.447
Teacher spread0.340 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations160
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Journal of the American Society of NephrologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207