MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410131183 · doi:10.1177/20543581251336551

Technical and Institutional Factors Affecting Specimen Adequacy and Complications in Ultrasound-guided Kidney Biopsy: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2025· article· en· W4410131183 on OpenAlexaffabout
Sydney M. Murray, Chance S. Dumaine, Christopher J Wall, Tamalina Banerjee, James C. Barton, Mike Moser

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal cell carcinoma treatment
Canadian institutionsSaskatchewan Health AuthorityUniversity of Saskatchewan
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRetrospective cohort studyBiopsyRadiologyPercutaneousKidney diseasePopulationCohortSurgeryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Percutaneous ultrasound-guided kidney biopsy is a critical diagnostic tool with a higher rate of complications than most other biopsies. Our prior research identified technical factors that might improve outcomes. Objective: The objective was to measure the impact of these technical and institutional interventions on specimen adequacy and complication rates in kidney biopsies. Design: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing outcomes before and after intervention implementation. Setting: Two hospitals within a single health region in Saskatchewan serving a population of approximately 1 million. Patients: All adult percutaneous ultrasound-guided kidney biopsies performed on adult patients between 2012 to 2016 (n = 242, pre-implementation) and 2017 to 2021 (n = 338, post-implementation). Both native and transplant biopsies were included, while patients under 18, open biopsies, and biopsies of kidney masses were excluded. Measurements: Primary outcomes included specimen adequacy and biopsy complications (hematoma, hemoglobin drop, infection, and arteriovenous fistula formation). Methods: Technical recommendations included introducing the biopsy needle at a 60° angle, targeting a pole, and avoiding the vascular medulla. Institutional recommendations included microscopic screening for all biopsies, limiting the number of radiologists performing procedures, using a checklist, and restricting computed tomography (CT)-guided biopsies to exceptional cases. Multivariate regression analysis assessed biopsy outcomes before and after the recommendations, controlling for known confounders while at the same time refining factors associated with fewer complications and greater diagnostic yield. Results: The rate of non-diagnostic specimens decreased from 10.3% to 4.4% ( P = .005), and complications decreased from 35.5% to 14.2% ( P < .0001). Two or three passes yielded excellent diagnostic success, while 4 passes increased the risk of a complication. Multivariate analysis, after accounting for the collinearity of certain technical factors revealed that medulla avoidance and biopsies done after the implementation of the 2016 recommendations significantly reduced the risk of complications (odds ratio [OR] = 0.37, P < .001) and non-diagnostic biopsies (OR = 0.31, P = .002). Limitations: Retrospective design and novelty bias may be a cause of bias in this study. Because the institutional recommendations were followed for all biopsies, it was not possible to distinguish which recommendation was most associated with the improvements. Because our study was done in a single health region, it is not clear if they are generalizable to other programs. Conclusions: The technical and institutional interventions implemented significantly improved specimen adequacy and reduced complication rates in ultrasound-guided kidney biopsies. We have added to these recommendations in that we have refined the requirement for angling the biopsy needle for ease of use and suggest limiting the number of passes to 2 or 3 whenever possible.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.008
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.286 · 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
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicRenal cell carcinoma treatmentFrench-language works237,207