MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2989441977 · doi:10.1111/hdi.12784

Relationship between bovine carotid artery grafts for hemodialysis access and human leukocyte antigen sensitization

2019· article· en· W2989441977 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lindsay M. Dyer‐Kindy, Alicia A. Heelan Gladden, Jane Gralla, Nicole McCormick, Colin Jenks, James Cooper, Peter Kennealey

Bibliographic record

VenueHemodialysis International · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemodialysisDialysisSensitizationCohortSurgeryConfidence intervalTransplantationArteriovenous fistulaUrologyHemodialysis accessInternal medicineVascular accessImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Bovine carotid artery (BCA) Artegraft is a biologic graft that can be utilized as a conduit for permanent hemodialysis access and has been shown to outperform polytetrafluoroethylene grafts. However, concern regarding immunologic sensitization may limit the use of BCA in the transplant candidate. Panel reactive antibody (PRA) is an immunological test utilized in transplant recipient selection whereas increases in PRA limit access to transplantation. The purpose of our study was to determine whether BCA graft placement was adversely associated with increases in PRA. METHODS: Of patients listed for kidney transplant at our institution, we identified 10 patients who underwent BCA placement for hemodialysis access and a matched cohort of 10 patients who underwent native arteriovenous fistula (AVF) creation between 2014 and 2017. The PRA value nearest to the surgery date was compared to postsurgery PRA value for the BCA and AVF patients using a paired t test. Presurgery PRAs were also compared to the maximum PRA at 0 to 6, 6 to 12, 12 to 18, and 18 to 24 months postsurgery. FINDINGS: Prior to the dialysis access operation, the mean PRA was 14.1% ± 23.5% vs. 17.1% ± 29.0% (P = 0.76) and the median postsurgery follow-up time was 16 and 15 months for BCA and AVF cohorts, respectively. There were no statistically significant differences between presurgery and postsurgery PRA for BCA and AVF patients, regardless of time interval postsurgery. The difference in presurgery/postsurgery PRA change between cohorts was not statistically significant for PRAs closest to surgery (0.2% ± 40.6% vs. 1.0% ± 2.8%, P = 0.95, at a median 4 and 3 months postsurgery, respectively) or when using the maximum in any postsurgery interval. Prior to their dialysis access surgery, there were 16 sensitizing events in 5 patients in the BCA group compared to 10 events in 5 patients in the AVF group (P = 0.20). Only 1 of the 10 patients in the BCA group had a clinically relevant and sustained increase in PRA following their dialysis access operation vs. no patients in the AVF group (P > 0.99). However, this patient had a known sensitizing event (blood transfusion) between the BCA surgery and the postoperative PRA. Three of 10 patients in the BCA cohort vs. 5 of 10 patients in the AVF cohort went on to have successful kidney transplants (P = 0.65). DISCUSSION: The utilization of BCA for dialysis access was not associated with statistically significant changes in PRA. These data suggest that implantation of BCA will not affect access to organ transplantation.

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)0.003
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.069
GPT teacher head0.380
Teacher spread0.311 · 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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHemodialysis International→Same topicCentral Venous Catheters and Hemodialysis→French-language works237,207→