Early surveillance biopsy utilization and management of pediatric renal allograft acute T cell–mediated rejection in Canadian centers: Observations from the PROBE multicenter cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Early TCMR surveillance with protocol kidney biopsy is used differentially among pediatric kidney transplant centers. Little has been reported about actual center-based differences, and this variability may influence TCMR ascertainment, treatment, and monitoring more broadly. METHODS: Data from the PROBE multicenter study were used to identify patients from centers conducting ESB or LSIB. ESB was defined as >50% of patients having at least 1 surveillance biopsy in the first 9 months. Patients were compared for number of biopsies, rejection episodes, treatment, and follow-up monitoring. RESULTS: A total of 261 biopsies were performed on 97 patients over 1-2 years of follow-up. A total of 228 (87%) of biopsies were performed in ESB centers. Compared to LSIB centers, ESB centers had 7-fold more episodes of TCMR diagnosed on any biopsy [0.8 ± 1.2 vs 0.1 ± 0.4; P < .001] and a 3-fold higher rate from indication biopsies [0.3 ± 0.9 vs 0.1 ± 0.3; P = .04]. The proportion of rejection treatment varied based on severity: Banff borderline i1t1 (40%);>i1t1 and < Banff 1A (86%); and ≥ Banff 1A (100%). Biopsies for follow-up were performed after treatment in 80% of cases (n = 28) of rejection almost exclusively at ESB centers, with 17 (61%) showing persistence of TCMR (≥i1t1). CONCLUSIONS: Practice variation exists across Canadian pediatric renal transplant centers with ESB centers identifying more episodes of rejection. Additionally, treatment of Banff borderline is not universal and varies with severity regardless of center type. Lastly, follow-up biopsies are performed inconsistently and invariably show persistence of rejection.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".