Recurrence of FSGS after Kidney Transplantation in Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background and objectives FSGS recurrence after kidney transplantation is a major risk factor for graft loss. However, the natural history, clinical predictors, and response to treatment remain unclear because of small sample sizes and poor generalizability of single-center studies, and disease misclassification in registry-based studies. We therefore aimed to determine the incidence, predictors, and treatment response of recurrent FSGS in a large cohort of kidney transplant recipients. Design, setting, participants, & measurements The Post-Transplant Glomerular Disease (TANGO) project is an observational, multicenter, international cohort study that aims to investigate glomerular disease recurrence post-transplantation. Transplant recipients were screened for the diagnosis of idiopathic FSGS between 2005 and 2015 and details were recorded about the transplant, clinical outcomes, treatments, and other risk factors. Results Among 11,742 kidney transplant recipients screened for FSGS, 176 had a diagnosis of idiopathic FSGS and were included. FSGS recurred in 57 patients (32%; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 25% to 39%) and 39% of them lost their graft over a median of 5 (interquartile range, 3.0–8.1) years. Multivariable Cox regression revealed a higher risk for recurrence with older age at native kidney disease onset (hazard ratio [HR], 1.37 per decade; 95% CI, 1.09 to 1.56). Other predictors were white race (HR, 2.14; 95% CI, 1.08 to 4.22), body mass index at transplant (HR, 0.89 per kg/m 2 ; 95% CI, 0.83 to 0.95), and native kidney nephrectomies (HR, 2.76; 95% CI, 1.16 to 6.57). Plasmapheresis and rituximab were the most frequent treatments (81%). Partial or complete remission occurred in 57% of patients and was associated with better graft survival. Conclusions Idiopathic FSGS recurs post-transplant in one third of cases and is associated with a five-fold higher risk of graft loss. Response to treatment is associated with significantly better outcomes but is achieved in only half of the cases.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".