Pediatric Kidney Transplant Experience in Ontario: A Review of Division of the Surgical and Medical Management Across Local Tertiary Care Institutions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Our institution is the largest pediatric kidney transplantation (KT) center in Canada and the referral center for pediatric KT in Ontario. Pediatric KT recipients are referred to our center for KT and transferred back to their local tertiary care institutions for post-transplant care. This investigation assesses whether the current system of transferring patients back to their local tertiary care institutions following KT allows decreased burden and distribution of resources from a single centralized surgical center. Methods: A retrospective review of KT performed at our institution between 2000 and 2015 was performed. Patients were divided into those who began their chronic kidney disease (CKD) care at our institution and those who began their care elsewhere. Readmission to our institution within 1 year of KT for surgical and nonsurgical complications was compared. The geographical proximity of patients to our institution and institution of initial CKD care was assessed quantitatively and mapped visually. Results: Of 324 patients who underwent KT, 244 (75.3%) began their CKD care at our institution. Those who began their CKD care at other institutions had shorter initial admissions to our institution (17 [14-24] vs 14 [12-17], P < .0001) and were less likely to be readmitted to our institution for nonsurgical concerns at <6 months after transplant ( P < .0001) and 6 to 12 months after transplant ( P < .0001). There were similar readmissions for complications requiring surgical management. The relationship between the center of CKD initiation and readmission remained significant on multivariate analysis. There was a significant difference in distance (km) to our institution between the 2 groups (46 [interquartile range = 24-109] vs 203 [117-406], P < .0001). Conclusion: Patients who are geographically distanced from our institution began their CKD care at their closest institution and were managed effectively at those institutions following initial discharge/transfer of care, suggesting that there is an effective distribution of health care resources with regard to CKD and KT care.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".