MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4392593555 · doi:10.1097/txd.0000000000001603

Selective Elimination and Rationalization of Cell-based Assays in Deceased Donor Kidney Transplant Crossmatching

2024· article· en· W4392593555 on OpenAlexaff
Myriam Khalili, Olusegun Famure, Michelle Minkovich, Kathryn Tinckam, S. Joseph Kim

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation Direct · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsToronto General HospitalUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIncidence (geometry)Kidney transplantKidney transplantationSingle CenterRetrospective cohort studyKidneyUrologyDonor specific antibodiesInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background. While there is increasing reliance on a negative virtual crossmatch to proceed with deceased donor kidney transplantation, a flow cytometry crossmatch (FCXM) is still usually performed after the transplant has already occurred. Our center has eliminated pretransplant physical crossmatches for most patients, and since 2018, we have eliminated the systematic performance of posttransplant FCXMs. Methods. We studied all deceased donor kidney transplants in our program between June 1, 2018, and March 31, 2021, to evaluate the impact of eliminating retrospective FCXMs on resource utilization and graft outcomes (ie, the occurrence of antibody-mediated rejection [AMR] in the first 3-mo posttransplant). Results. A total of 358 kidney transplants occurred during the study period, and approximately 70% of these transplants proceeded without the performance of any FCXM. Incidence rates of AMR were low (9.63 per 1000 person-months), which compared favorably with the incidence rate of AMR during the 3-y period preceding the policy (4.82 per 1000 person-months, P = 0.21). Conclusions. Our results suggest that moving away from retrospective FCXM and relying exclusively on the virtual crossmatch is safe and efficient for kidney allocation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.087
Threshold uncertainty score0.611

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.013
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.272 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation DirectSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207