MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4408369193 · doi:10.1093/bjs/znaf042.052

153 10-year analysis of the impact of normothermic regional perfusion in simultaneous pancreas and kidney transplant

2025· article· en· W4408369193 on OpenAlexaff
Ruth Owen, Samuel J Tingle, Emily Thompson, Claire Counter, Lewis Simmonds, Chris Callaghan, John Casey, Ian Currie, Martin Drage, Doruk Elker, Derek Manas, Anand Muthusamy, Gavin J. Pettigrew, Sanjay Sinha, Andrew Sutherland, David van Dellen, Christopher J.E. Watson, Aimen Amer, Colin Wilson, Steve White

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish journal of surgery · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePancreasPerfusionKidneyKidney transplantUrologyKidney transplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Deceased Cardiac Donors (DCD) organs are increasingly being used for simultaneous pancreas and kidney (SPK) transplant. The number recovered following in-situ normothermic regional perfusion (NRP) is also increasing. This study reviewed a 10-year UK experience of SPK transplantation following NRP in DCD. Methods Data were collected on all first DCD SPK transplants (n=426) performed during 2013-2023 from the UK Transplant Registry. NRP and non-NRP donors were compared using adjusted regression models. Multiple imputation was used to deal with missing data. Results Most grafts were from non-NRP donors n=379 (89%) with n=47 (11%) from NRP donors. Median warm ischaemic time (withdrawal to start of aortic cold or normothermic perfusion) was longer with NRP (17 vs 12 minutes; p=0.005). For all other parameters donors and recipients were well matched. Univariable analysis showed no statistically significant difference in one-year pancreas graft (NRP 93.6%, non-NRP 89.2%, p=0.206). A multivariable model adjusted for donor and recipient factors showed lower pancreas graft loss with NRP, but this did not reach statistical significance (aHR 0.56, 95%CI 0.17-1.80, p=0.327). Sensitivity analyses adjusting for PDRI showed similar results. NRP was not associated with 3-month insulin independence (p=0.51) or pancreas graft rejection (p=0.48). Conclusions Concerns exist that NRP may be detrimental to the pancreas. This 10-year UK analysis is the largest reported. We found lower pancreas graft loss in the NRP group, though not statistically significant. This data, along with previous benefits demonstrated in liver and kidney, support continued expansion of the NRP programmes.

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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.245

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.261 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish journal of surgerySame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207