MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008689516 · doi:10.1177/2054358120906976

Use of the Living Kidney Donor Profile Index in the Canadian Kidney Transplant Recipient Population: A Validation Study

2020· article· en· W3008689516 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mohamed Shantier, Yanhong Li, Monika Ashwin, Olsegun Famure, Sunita Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineInterquartile rangeProportional hazards modelContext (archaeology)DialysisRetrospective cohort studyKidney transplantationCohortPopulationTransplantationKidney diseaseCohort studyHazard ratioInternal medicineSurgeryConfidence intervalEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Living Kidney Donor Profile Index (LKDPI) was derived in a cohort of kidney transplant recipients (KTR) from the United States to predict the risk of total graft failure. There are important differences in patient demographics, listing practices, access to transplantation, delivery of care, and posttransplant mortality in Canada as compared with the United States, and the generalizability of the LKDPI in the Canadian context is unknown. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to externally validate the LKDPI in a large contemporary cohort of Canadian KTR. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort validation study. SETTING: Toronto General Hospital, University Health Network, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. PATIENTS: A total of 645 adult (≥18 years old) living donor KTR between January 1, 2006 and December 31, 2016 with follow-up until December 31, 2017 were included in the study. MEASUREMENTS: The predictive performance of the LKDPI was evaluated. The outcome of interest was total graft failure, defined as the need for chronic dialysis, retransplantation, or death with graft function. METHODS: The Cox proportional hazards model was used to examine the relation between the LKDPI and total graft failure. The Cox proportional hazards model was also used for external validation and performance assessment of the model. Discrimination and calibration were used to assess model performance. Discrimination was assessed using Harrell's C statistic and calibration was assessed graphically, comparing observed versus predicted probabilities of total graft failure. RESULTS: = .02). Discrimination was poor (C statistic = 0.55; 95% CI = 0.48-0.61). Calibration was as good at 1-year posttransplant but suboptimal at 3- and 5-years posttransplant. LIMITATIONS: Limitations include a relatively small sample size, predicted probabilities for assessment of calibration only available for scores of 0 to 100, and some missing data handled by imputation. CONCLUSIONS: In this external validation study, the predictive ability of the LKDPI was modest in a cohort of Canadian KTR. Validation of prediction models is an important step to assess performance in external populations. Potential recalibration of the LKDPI may be useful prior to clinical use in external cohorts.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.009
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 score0.159
Threshold uncertainty score0.321

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.277
Teacher spread0.236 · 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

Citations8
Published2020
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207