Long-Term Risks of Living Kidney Donation: State of the Evidence and Strategies to Resolve Knowledge Gaps
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Living-donor kidney transplantation is the preferred treatment for kidney failure. In the United States, rates of living kidney donation have been stagnant, which is partly related to concerns over medical and financial risks. Recent research has better characterized the risks of living kidney donation, although the field is limited by a lack of robust registries. Available evidence supports small increases in the risks of end-stage kidney disease and hypertensive disorders of pregnancy in living donors. For most donors, the 15-year risk of kidney failure is less than 1%, but for certain populations this risk may be higher. New tools such as genetic kidney disease panels may assist with risk stratification. Living kidney donors generally have similar or improved psychosocial health following donation compared to prior to donation and nondonor experience. Postdonation care allows for preventative care measures to mitigate risk as well as ongoing surveillance of donor outcomes. Continuing efforts to capture and report outcomes of living donation are necessary to safely expand living donation worldwide.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it