Assessing survival post‐kidney transplantation in Australia: A multivariable prediction model
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: Kidney transplantation remains the preferred standard of care for patients with kidney failure. Most patients do not access this treatment and wide variations exist in which patients access transplantation. We sought to develop a model to estimate post-kidney transplant survival to inform more accurate comparisons of access to kidney transplantation. METHODS: Development and validation of prediction models using demographic and clinical data from the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplant Registry. Adult deceased donor kidney only transplant recipients between 2000 and 2020 were included. Cox proportional hazards regression methods were used with a primary outcome of patient survival. Models were evaluated using Harrell's C-statistic for discrimination, and calibration plots, predicted survival probabilities and Akaike Information Criterion for goodness-of-fit. RESULTS: The model development and validation cohorts included 11 302 participants. Most participants were male (62.8%) and Caucasian (79.2%). Glomerulonephritis was the most common cause of kidney disease (45.6%). The final model included recipient, donor, and transplant related variables. The model had good discrimination (C-statistic, 0.72; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70-0.74 in the development cohort, 0.70; 95% CI 0.67-0.73 in the validation cohort and 0.72; 95% CI 0.69-0.75 in the temporal cohort) and was well calibrated. CONCLUSION: We developed a statistical model that predicts post-kidney transplant survival in Australian kidney failure patients. This model will aid in assessing the suitability of kidney transplantation for patients with kidney failure. Survival estimates can be used to make more informed comparisons of access to transplantation between units to better measure equity of access to organ 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 | 0.004 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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 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".