Sex and gender as predictors for allograft and patient-relevant outcomes after kidney transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (prognosis). The objectives are as follows: To evaluate the prognostic effect of the recipient's (i) sex and gender separately (ii) gender as an independent predictor of patient‐relevant outcomes at any time period following kidney or SPK transplantation (Table 1) and explore sources of heterogeneity. We aim to evaluate this prognostic effect by (a) clearly defining the relationship between recipient sex/gender and post‐transplantation outcomes, which would involve identifying reasons for variations between sexes and genders, and then (b) quantifying the magnitude of this relationship. INVESTIGATION OF SOURCES OF HETEROGENEITY BETWEEN STUDIES: Sources of heterogeneity may exist between studies that can have an impact on outcomes. We will explore potential sources, which may include patient age, self‐reported ethnicity, country of transplantation, transplant era, living versus deceased donor transplantation, definitions and units used for outcomes, quality of the study, and the indication 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.028 | 0.093 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.013 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.035 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".