MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410717232 · doi:10.1177/20543581251342428

C-Reactive Protein Monitoring Identifies Urinary Tract Infections in Ambulatory Kidney Transplant Recipients

2025· article· en· W4410717232 on OpenAlexaffabout
Emily Wang, Abdelhamid Aboghanem, Niki Dacouris, Lindita Rapi, Weiqiu Yuan, Rosane Nisenbaum, Michelle M. Nash, G. V. Ramesh Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and Disease · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicUrinary Tract Infections Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCohortUrinary systemRenal functionInternal medicineUrineKidney transplantationLogistic regressionKidneySurgeryGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Urinary tract infections (UTI) are common in kidney transplant recipients (KTR). Although risk factors for UTI are well described, predicting symptomatic UTI with positive urine cultures in the first posttransplant year is challenging. Objective: Our clinic routinely monitors serum highly sensitive C-reactive protein (CRP) as part of posttransplant care. We sought to define the role of CRP in identifying symptomatic UTI in KTR. Design: Nested case control study Setting: A large adult single-organ kidney transplant center in Toronto, Canada. Patients: We identified a nested cohort of 78 KTR who experienced a symptomatic UTI with positive urine cultures (cases) and compared them to a cohort of 78 KTR controls matched by time elapsed posttransplant. Measurements: Patient demographics, urine cultures, CRP, and kidney function during the first posttransplant year. Methods: We identified a cohort of KTR transplanted between January 1, 2016, and December 31, 2019. A positive urine culture ordered only for clinical indication in the first posttransplant year identified KTR with a UTI defined >10 5 colony forming units/mL. UTI cases were matched 1:1 to non-UTI controls transplanted immediately preceding or succeeding the UTI case. Bivariate comparisons were performed by t test, Wilcoxon 2-sample test for continuous variables, chi-square, or Fisher’s exact test as appropriate, with clinically significant variables entered into multivariable logistic regression models to determine associations. Results: Older age, female sex, and the presence of a stent were each associated with a UTI. Immediately preceding UTI, eGFR ( P = .019), serum albumin ( P < .0001), and hemoglobin ( P = .002) were lower, while serum CRP ( P < .0001) and absolute neutrophils ( P = .03) were higher in cases than controls. However, in several multivariable models, only absolute CRP ( P = .001), change in CRP ( P = .005), female sex ( P < .0001), and ureteric stent ( P = .008) consistently predicted a UTI. Each 5 mg/dL change between the 2 preceding CRP values predicted a 15% increased likelihood of UTI, while each 1 mg/dL in absolute CRP concentration was associated with a 5% risk. Limitations: Retrospective case-control design, single-center, small sample size. Hospital inpatients and patients with other infections, acute inflammatory conditions, or rejection were excluded. Urine infections may more easily be detected when patients visit the clinic frequently. Conclusions: Routine ambulatory CRP monitoring in the first year may help identify subsequent symptomatic UTI in KTR, allow for the initiation of earlier therapy, and reduce patient morbidity. What was known before? UTI in KTR are common in the first posttransplant year. Antibiotic therapy is typically not initiated until the results of urine cultures become known. What this adds: The routine use of appropriate biomarkers such as CRP as part of a posttransplant monitoring strategy may allow clinicians to order urine cultures, help identify UTI earlier, and start therapy sooner, promoting patient well-being.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.015
GPT teacher head0.294
Teacher spread0.278 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Kidney Health and DiseaseSame topicUrinary Tract Infections ManagementFrench-language works237,207