MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4399649704 · doi:10.17352/2640-7973.000022

Acute post-transplant oxalate nephropathy: A case report and review of the literature

2024· article· en· W4399649704 on OpenAlexaff
F Daniel, Gougeon Francois, Barama Azemi

Bibliographic record

VenueArchives of Organ Transplantation · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMalabsorptionTransplantationDialysisPeritoneal dialysisDiabetes mellitusDiabetic nephropathyNephropathyHemodialysisSurgeryKidney transplantationInternal medicineGastroenterologyKidneyEndocrinology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Calcium oxalate deposition in the kidney allograft remains an underappreciated cause of acute graft dysfunction. Diagnoses such as acute rejection, infection, hydronephrosis, and fluid collections are more immediately considered in the early post-transplant period. Risk factors include hyperoxaluria due to chronic fat malabsorption (post gastric bypass, inflammatory bowel disease), a diet rich in salt or animal protein, vitamin C ingestion, volume depletion, diabetes, and delayed graft function. We present the case of a patient who developed acute kidney injury secondary to oxalate nephropathy at 3 months post-transplant. Renal function improved with medical management, including volume repletion, calcium carbonate, and potassium citrate, without the need for hemodialysis. As more dialysis patients with morbid obesity requiring bariatric surgery, diabetes, and metabolic syndrome are being considered for renal transplantation, this entity merits more careful attention both prior to and after 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 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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0080.007
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.005
GPT teacher head0.257
Teacher spread0.252 · 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 designCase report
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 venueArchives of Organ Transplantation→Same topicKidney Stones and Urolithiasis Treatments→French-language works237,207→