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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BackgroundABO blood group-incompatible kidney transplantation is considered a safe procedure, with non-inferior outcomes in large cohort studies.Its contribution to living kidney transplantation programs is substantial and growing.Outcomes compared to centermatched ABO blood group-compatible control patients have not been ascertained. DesignComprehensive searches were conducted in Embase, Medline, Cochrane, Web-of-Science and Google Scholar.MOOSE study guidelines for observational studies and Newcastle Ottawa bias scale were implemented to assess studies.Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager 5.3.A subgroup analysis on antibody removal technique was performed. ResultsAfter identifying 2728 studies addressing ABO-incompatible kidney transplantation, 26 studies were included, describing 1346 unique ABO-incompatible patients and 4943 ABO-compatible controls.Risk of bias was low (all studies ≥ 7/9 stars).Baseline patient characteristics revealed no significant differences in immunological risk parameters.Statistical heterogeneity of studies was low (I 2 0% for graft and patient survival).Oneyear uncensored graft survival of ABO-incompatible patients was 96% versus 98% in ABO-compatible controls (RR 0.97, CI 0.96-0.98,p<0.001).49% of reported causes of death in ABO-incompatible patients were of infectious origin, versus only 13% in ABOcompatible patients (p=0.02).Antibody-mediated rejection (3.86, CI 2.05-7.29,p<0.001), severe non-viral infection (1.44, p=0.003) and bleeding (1.92, p<0.001) were also more common after ABO-incompatible transplantation. ConclusionABO-incompatible kidney transplant recipients have good outcomes albeit inferior to center-matched ABO-compatible control patients.20 Chapter 2 26 Chapter 2 Table 1 (continued).Overview of the included studies in the meta-analysis.Study period country ABOi ABOc controls desensitization induction follow-up (months) Iwai, 2015 (34)
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 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 | 0.001 | 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 it