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

ABO-Incompatible Kidney Transplant Outcomes

2018· review· en· W2883905781 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.803
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.007
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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