Canadian Society of Transplantation: consensus guidelines on eligibility for kidney transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
S ince 1980, the incidence and prevalence of end-stage renal disease (ESRD) have increased each year in Canada and throughout the world. From 1981 to 1999, the number of new patients with ESRD grew at a compound annual rate of 7.3% 1 and similar trends were documented worldwide. 2 By 31 Dec. 2000, 24 921 Canadians were receiving life-sustaining treatment for ESRD; dialysis was the treatment modality for 14 567 patients and the remaining 10 354 patients (41.5%) had a functioning kidney transplant. The development of ESRD is associated with a substantial reduction in health-related quality of life 4,5 and premature death. 6 Kidney transplantation is the treatment of choice for ESRD as it prolongs survival, 7 improves quality of life 4,5 and is less costly than dialysis. espite the benefits of kidney transplantation, not all patients with ESRD take this route and there is considerable variation in transplantation rates across Canada; for example, the renal transplantation rate (per million population) is only 27.4 in Saskatchewan compared with 51.8 in the Atlantic provinces. 3 It is not known to what extent this variation is due to differences in rates of referral and acceptance for transplantation (i.e., perceived eligibility) or to differences in availability of donors. The purpose of this consensus document was to outline which patients, in the growing Canadian ESRD population, are currently eligible for transplantation. We hope that these guidelines will lead to consistency in determining which patients are eligible and accepted for kidney 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".