Experience With 117 Donation After Circulatory Death Expanded Criteria Donor Kidney Transplants: What Are the Limits of Acceptability?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Nonuse of expanded criteria donor (ECD) kidneys from donation after cardiocirculatory death (DCD) donors remains high. The study purpose was to analyze our experience with kidney transplantation (KT) from DCD donors stratified by ECD versus non-ECD (standard criteria donor [SCD]). METHODS: Single center retrospective cohort study of all primary DCD KT recipients. RESULTS: From April 2003 to January 2024, we performed 671 primary DCD KTs (554 from DCD/SCDs and 117 from DCD/ECDs). Mean donor and recipient ages were 38.3 ± 14.6 DCD/SCD versus 59.4 ± 4.5 years DCD/ECD and 54.0 ± 13.1 DCD/SCD versus 63.0 ± 7.7 years DCD/ECD, respectively (both p < 0.05). Mean Kidney Donor Profile Index (KDPI) values were 53 ± 23% DCD/SCD versus 85 ± 9% DCD/ECD (p < 0.05). With a mean follow-up of 71 months DCD/SCD and 58 months DCD/ECD, patient (76.2% DCD/SCD vs. 72.6% DCD/ECD) and graft survival (61.6% DCD/SCD vs. 61.5% DCD/ECD) rates were comparable. Rates of primary nonfunction/thrombosis and delayed graft function were 3.4% for both DCD/SCD and DCD/ECD and 49% DCD/SCD versus 56% DCD/ECD, respectively (both p = NS). The presence of DGF did not influence survival outcomes in DCD/ECD KTs whereas inferior graft survival was noted in DCD/SCD KTs with DGF. However, DGF did have a negative effect on renal function in all groups. DCD/ECD KTs with or without DGF had comparable outcomes to DCD/SCD KTs with DGF. CONCLUSIONS: DCD/ECD KTs are associated with inferior functional but similar mid-term survival outcomes compared to DCD/SCD KTs with DGF. The presence of DGF appears to have a differential effect on survival outcomes in these two groups.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".