MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4412852531 · doi:10.1016/j.ajt.2025.07.599

Long-Term Risks in Obese Living Kidney Donors: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2025· review· en· W4412852531 on OpenAlexaff
Asad Naveed, Suraju Adeyemo, Rebecca S. Ahdoot, Joshua W. Sy, Abimereki D. Muzaale, Katafan Achkar, Andrew Odegaard, Fawaz Al Ammary

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Transplantation · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOrgan Donation and Transplantation
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisTerm (time)Intensive care medicineMEDLINEInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: Obesity is prevalent in the U.S. Given the shortage of living kidney donors, transplant centers have been more willing to accept obese donor candidates in recent years. To better counsel obese donor candidates about donor nephrectomy risks, we aimed to summarize evidence for long-term risks for obese living kidney donors compared to non-obese living kidney donors across studies.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.026

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0130.027
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.329 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of TransplantationSame topicOrgan Donation and TransplantationFrench-language works237,207