MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4398139299 · doi:10.1111/petr.14785

Immune monitoring in pediatric kidney transplant

2024· article· en· W4398139299 on OpenAlexaff
C Laroche, Rachel M. Engen

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineIntensive care medicineBiopsyRenal functionTransplantationKidney transplantationImmune systemClinical trialAcute kidney injuryInternal medicineImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Long-term outcomes in pediatric kidney transplantation remain suboptimal, largely related to chronic rejection. Creatinine is a late marker of renal injury, and more sensitive, early markers of allograft injury are an active area of current research. METHODS: This is an educational review summarizing existing strategies for monitoring for rejection in kidney transplant recipients. RESULTS: We summarize supporting currently available clinical tests, including surveillance biopsy, donor specific antibodies, and donor-derived cell free DNA, as well as the potential limitations of these studies. In addition, we review the current avenues of active research, including transcriptomics, proteomics, metabolomics, and torque tenovirus levels. CONCLUSION: Advancing the use of noninvasive immune monitoring will depend on well-designed multicenter trials that include patients with stable graft function, include biopsy results on all patients, and can demonstrate both association with a patient-relevant clinical endpoint such as graft survival or change in glomerular filtration rate and a potential timepoint for intervention.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.286
Teacher spread0.269 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207