Comparison of Yield and Complications between Different Types of Pediatric Renal Biopsy Devices: A Retrospective Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Objective: The objective of this study was to perform a retrospective review comparing the yield and complications between a side slot cutting needle (SSCN) device and Franseen-type full circumference coring needle (FFCCN) devices and investigate our hypothesis that the latter device would demonstrate both greater yield and increased complications owing to its mechanism. Materials and Methods: For 99 patients, 112 pediatric kidney biopsies were performed by interventional radiologists with real-time ultrasound guidance between 2017 and 2021. A total of 68 and 44 biopsies were completed using the SSCN and FFCCN devices, respectively, with two biopsies completed using both devices. The mean age, weight, and body mass index were 11.5 years, 46.09 kg, and 21.58 kg/m 2 (standard deviation 5). Fifty-seven biopsies were performed on female patients. Patient demographics, blood count, yield, and complications were extracted and compared using t -tests and Chi-square tests. Results: A hemoglobin (Hb) drop was the most common complication (67.86%). The incidence of hematuria and Hb drop >15 g/L were higher in the FFCCN group, P = 0.017 and P = 0.032. The overall mean number of cores and the mean amount of Hb drop in transplant kidney biopsies were higher in the SSCN group, P = 0.033 and P = 0.038, respectively. Conclusion: This is the first study to compare these biopsy devices and report on the performance of the FFCCN device. These findings should be considered when evaluating the choice of renal biopsy device.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".