Combined Donor-Recipient Obesity and the Risk of Graft Loss After Kidney Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: As the prevalence of obesity increases globally, appreciating the effect of donor and recipient (DR) obesity on graft outcomes is of increasing importance. Methods: In a cohort of adult, kidney transplant recipients (2000–2017) identified using the SRTR, we used Cox proportional hazards models to examine the association between DR obesity pairing (body mass index (BMI) >30 kg/m2), and death-censored graft loss (DCGL) or all-cause graft loss, and logistic regression to examine risk of delayed graft function (DGF) and ≤30 days graft loss. We also explored the association of DR weight mismatch (>30 kg, 10-30 kg (D>R; D Results: Relative to non-obese DR, obese DR were highest risk for all outcomes (DCGL: HR 1.26, 95% CI 1.22–1.32; all-cause graft loss: HR 1.09, 95% CI 1.06–1.12; DGF: OR 1.98, 95% CI 1.89–2.08; early graft loss: OR 1.34, 95% CI 1.19–1.51). Donor obesity modified the risk of recipient obesity and DCGL [p = 0.001] and all-cause graft loss [p < 0.001] but not DGF or early graft loss. The known association of DR weight mismatch with DCGL was attenuated when either the donor or recipient was obese. Conclusion: DR obesity status impacts early and late post-transplant outcomes.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".