Utility of pre‐transplant lower urinary tract investigation in pediatric renal transplant population after referral: A 16‐year institutional experience
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To evaluate the clinical utility of pre-renal transplant LUT investigations in pediatric populations after their referral for transplant evaluation based on the etiology of their ESRD. A 16 year retrospective review of patients undergoing RT performed at our institution was performed. Patients were stratified into two groups: Group 1-non-urologic and Group 2-urologic etiology for ESRD. Baseline characteristics, pre-transplant LUT investigations, and urologic interventions were assessed. One-year clinical outcomes were compared between those with and without LUT investigations following referral for renal transplantation (RT). 227 patients and 97 patients were identified for Groups 1 and 2, respectively. 19% of Group 1 and 73% of Group 2 had VCUG, while 1% and 13%, respectively, had UDS ordered following referral for RT. In both groups, >50% of VCUG and UDS were ordered without specific clinical concerns. These had low likelihood of prompting interventions, both pre-transplant (Group 1-VCUG 0%, UDS 0%; Group 2-VCUG 0%, UDS 8%) or post-transplant (Group 1-0%, Group 2-5%). In both groups, LUT investigation following referral for RT did not lead to differences in 1 year outcomes assessed. In anticipation of pediatric RT, LUT investigations ordered without clinical indications did not provide information that altered management prior to transplantation.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".