MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4401193713 · doi:10.1177/20543581241267165

The Use of Kidneys With Lower Longevity From Deceased Donors to Improve Access to Preemptive Renal Transplantation for Elderly Patients: A Qualitative Study

2024· article· en· W4401193713 on OpenAlexaffabout
Carina Sancho, Aliya Affdal, Fabián-Andrés Ballesteros Gallego, Marie‐Françoise Malo, Savannah-Lou Cochran-Mavrikakis, Héloïse Cardinal, John S. Gill, Marie‐Chantal Fortin

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de MontréalTranslational Research in OncologyUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationDialysisThematic analysisKidney transplantationKidney diseaseLongevityQuality of life (healthcare)Informed consentIntensive care medicineInternal medicineQualitative researchGerontologyNursingPathologyAlternative medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There is a gap between the number of patients waiting for a transplant and the number of kidneys available. Some deceased donor kidneys are currently nonutilized, as medical teams fear that they will experience suboptimal graft survival. However, these organs could provide an acceptable therapeutic option if they were allocated for preemptive kidney transplantation in elderly candidates. Objective: This project aims to gather patients' perspectives on the allocation of kidneys with lower longevity for preemptive kidney transplantation in elderly patients. Design: Individual interviews. Setting: The Center hospitalier de l'Université de Montréal (CHUM) chronic kidney disease (CKD) clinic. Participants: Patients aged between 64 and 75 years with CKD G4-5 ND, followed at the CHUM and who have not initiated dialysis yet. Methods: Between March and July 2023, we conducted 14 individual interviews with patients aged between 64 and 75 years who had CKD G4-5 ND and were followed at the CHUM. The interviews were digitally recorded and transcribed. Thematic analysis was conducted. Results: Most participants were in favor of using kidneys with lower longevity to increase their access to transplantation, improve their quality of life, enable accelerated transplantation, and avoid dialysis. Patients also wanted to be engaged in the decision-making process, underlining the importance of informed consent. Although the use of kidneys with lower longevity offers the hope of returning to "normal" life, some patients were concerned about the risk of reduced graft survival and the need for a subsequent kidney transplant. In these cases, patients were interested in using mitigation strategies, such as prioritization for kidney transplantation from standard donors in case of early graft loss associated with receiving kidneys with lower longevity. They also recommended the development of a separate waiting list for patients consenting to preemptive transplantation with kidneys with lower longevity. Limitations: This study was conducted in only 1 nephrology clinic in the province of Quebec with French-speaking patients. Consequently, the results may not be generalizable to other populations, including ethnic minorities. Conclusion: The use of kidneys with lower longevity for preemptive kidney transplantation appears to be an interesting option for elderly kidney transplant candidates. However, patient information and participation in the decision-making process are essential. Moreover, organ donation organizations and transplant programs should develop a separate waitlist for transplant candidates who have preconsented to receive organ offers of deceased donor kidneys with lower longevity. Trial registration: Not registered.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.057

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0060.005
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0010.004
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.319 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207