Kidney function, cardiovascular outcomes and survival of living kidney donors with hypertension: a systematic review protocol
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Hypertension has been considered a contraindication for living kidney donation in the past. Since transplantation from living kidney donors remains the best modality for kidney failure, there is now an increased acceptance of living kidney donors with hypertension. However, the safety of this practice for the cardiovascular and kidney health of the donor is unclear. We will conduct a systematic review to summarise and synthesise the existing literature on this topic. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review of prospective randomised and non-randomised and retrospective studies will be conducted. MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane CENTRAL and EBM reviews published from January 1946 to December 2021 will be reviewed. Primary outcome will be the difference in the survival, major adverse cardiovascular events, estimated glomerular filtration rate of 45 mL/min or less and development of end-stage kidney failure, between living kidney donors with and without hypertension. Study screening, selection, and data extraction will be performed by two independent reviewers. Studies must fulfil all eligibility criteria for inclusion into the systematic review and meta-analysis. The Risk of Bias in Non-Randomised studies tool will be used to assess bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethical approval is required for this systematic review. The results of this review will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed, open-access journal to ensure access to all stakeholders in kidney transplantation and to inform clinical guidelines on the evaluation and follow-up care of living kidney donor candidates. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42022300119.
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 | 0.053 | 0.053 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.015 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.060 | 0.006 |
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".