The role of renal resistive index as a prognostic tool in kidney transplantation: a systematic review
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
BACKGROUND: In kidney transplant recipients (KTRs), observational data have reported conflicting findings about the utility of renal resistive index (RRI) in determining outcomes. This study aimed to synthesize the current literature and determine the prognostic role of RRI in KTRs. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic review to assess the role of RRI in predicting death, graft failure, graft function and proteinuria. Of the 934 titles/abstracts reviewed, 26 studies were included. There was significant heterogeneity in RRI measurements and thresholds as well as in analytical methods, and a meta-analysis could not be performed. RESULTS: All included studies were observational and included 7049 KTRs. Eight studies analyzed death, of which five reported a significant association with higher RRI. In the remaining three, small sample sizes and lower/multiple RRI thresholds may have limited detection of a statistically significant difference. Three studies investigated all-cause graft failure, and an association with RRI was reported but varied by time of RRI measurement. Three out of five studies that analyzed a composite of patient and graft outcomes reported an association with RRI. Evidence analyzing death-censored graft failure, graft failure (unclear whether death-censored or all-cause), measures of graft function and proteinuria was conflicting. Most studies had a moderate to high risk of bias. CONCLUSIONS: RRI likely has a prognostic role in predicting patient outcomes, reflecting patient systemic vascular disease burden rather than graft hemodynamics. Since cardiovascular diseases are a major cause of death and graft loss, RRI may be explored as a noninvasive tool to risk-stratify KTRs.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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