MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911614647 · doi:10.1002/iju5.12047

Renal transplant anastomotic pseudoaneurysms: Case report of open repair and endovascular management

2019· article· en· W2911614647 on OpenAlexaff
Nitin Sharma, Samir Bidnur, Mauricio Caldas, Dermot McNally, Alan Murray, Robert Turnbull, Gerald Todd, Ronald B. Moore

Bibliographic record

VenueIJU Case Reports · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal and Vascular Pathologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta HospitalAlberta Hospital Edmonton
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePseudoaneurysmSurgeryAnastomosisAngioplastyExternal iliac arteryRenal arteryStentVascularityRadiologyAneurysmKidneyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Anastomotic pseudoaneurysm is one of the rarest vascular complications after renal transplant surgery. Therapeutic options include open surgical repair or endovascular stenting. CASE PRESENTATION: Case 1 had pseudoaneurysm involving external iliac artery and was managed by jump graft to allograft using cadaveric donor iliac arteries and patch angioplasty repair of external iliac artery after excising pseudoaneurysm. Case 2 had undergone orthotopic renal transplant with spleno-renal arterial anastomosis and developed a massive pseudoaneurysm proximal to spleno-renal arterial anastomosis. This patient underwent endovascular stenting preserving allograft vascularity and graft function. Outcome in both patients was successful with normalization of renal function to baseline levels. CONCLUSION: Treatment of renal transplant anastomotic pseudoaneurysms is difficult and associated with high rates of graft loss. Open surgery is the gold standard providing several possibilities for arterial reconstruction preserving graft and limb circulation. Endovascular treatment should be considered in high-risk surgical patients with favorable anatomy.

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 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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.681

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designCase report
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

Citations7
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIJU Case ReportsSame topicRenal and Vascular PathologiesFrench-language works237,207