MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093394977 · doi:10.1111/petr.13867

Low renal transplantation rates in children with end‐stage kidney disease: A study of barriers in a low‐resource setting

2020· article· en· W3093394977 on OpenAlex
Priya Pais, Tom Blydt‐Hansen, John A. Michael Raj, Luca Dello Strologo, Arpana Iyengar

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationNephrologySocioeconomic statusKidney transplantationKidney diseasePediatricsEnd stage renal diseaseKidney transplantEnd-stage kidney diseaseInternal medicineIntensive care medicineDiseaseEnvironmental healthPopulation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After 2 decades as a low-cost transplant centre in India, our rates of kidney transplantation are low compared to the burden of end-stage kidney disease (ESKD). We performed this study to identify possible barriers inhibiting paediatric kidney transplant and to assess the outcomes of paediatric ESKD. A retrospective chart review of ESKD patients (2013 - 2018) at a tertiary paediatric nephrology centre was conducted. Medical/non-medical barriers to transplant were noted. Patient outcomes were classified as "continued treatment," "lost to follow-up (LTFU)" or "died." Of 155 ESKD patients (monthly income 218 USD [146, 365], 94% self-pay), only 30 (19%) were transplanted (28 living donor). Sixty-five (42%) were LTFU, 19 (12%) died, and 71 (46%) continued treatment. LTFU/death was associated with greater travel distance (300 km [60, 400] vs 110 km [20, 250] km, P < .0001) and lower monthly income (145 USD [101, 290] vs 290 USD [159, 681], P < .0001). Among those who continued treatment, 41 proceeded to transplant evaluation of whom 13 had no living donor and remained waitlisted for 27 months (15, 30). The remainder (n = 30) did not proceed to transplant due to unresolved medical issues (n = 10) or a lack of parental interest in pursuing transplant (n = 20). Barriers to transplantation in low-resource setting begin in ESKD. LTFU resulted in withdrawal of care and was associated with low socioeconomic status. Among those who continued treatment, transplant rates were higher but medical challenges and negative attitudes towards transplant and organ donation occurred.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.955

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.250
Teacher spread0.242 · 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