MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412707981 · doi:10.1038/s41467-025-60410-3

Opportunities and challenges with the implementation of normothermic machine perfusion in kidney transplantation

2025· review· en· W4412707981 on OpenAlexaff
Ton J. Rabelink, Sarah A. Hosgood, Thomas Minor, Markus Selzner, Annemarie Weißenbacher, Henri G. D. Leuvenink, Stefan Schneeberger

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Communications · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
FundersNovo Nordisk FondenNovo NordiskEuropean Commission
KeywordsMachine perfusionEconomic shortageMedicineKidney transplantationDialysisIntensive care medicineLimitingTransplantationKidneyKidney diseaseOrgan transplantationPerfusionSurgeryInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

End stage kidney disease and dialysis are lifetime limiting and lifestyle-defining conditions with enormous costs to the health care system. Despite a severe organ shortage, thousands of organs that are retrieved for transplantation go to waste every year because of the presumed inadequacy of organ quality and/or the limited organ preservation time. Normothermic kidney machine perfusion (NMP) holds the potential to resolve this through improved preservation, prolonged preservation time, kidney quality assessment, reconditioning and treatment. We herein develop a perspective on the potential, but also the hurdles towards the breakthrough of this technology. Normothermic machine perfusion could prolong and/or improve preservation of kidneys in transplantation, but the technology has yet to reach clinical realization. Here, the authors show the hurdles, but also the solutions, for this technology to become a reality in transplantation and beyond.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations8
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature CommunicationsSame topicOrgan Transplantation Techniques and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207