MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6908050386 · doi:10.25384/sage.c.6452255.v1

Long-Term Outcomes for Living Kidney Donors With Early Guideline-Concordant Follow-up Care: A Retrospective Cohort Study

2023· other· en· W6908050386 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueSage Journals Data · 2023
Typeother
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRetrospective cohort studyOdds ratioRenal functionConfidence intervalCohort studyCohortKidney diseaseOdds

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background:Current guidelines recommend that living kidney donors receive lifelong annual follow-up care to monitor kidney health. In the United States, the reporting of complete clinical and laboratory data for kidney donors has been mandated for the first 2 years post-donation; however, the long-term impact of early guideline-concordant care remains unclear.Objective:The primary objective of this study was to compare long-term post-donation follow-up care and clinical outcomes of living kidney donors with and without early guideline-concordant follow-up care.Design:Retrospective, population-based cohort study.Setting:Linked health care databases were used to identify kidney donors in Alberta, Canada.Patients:Four hundred sixty living kidney donors who underwent nephrectomy between 2002 and 2013.Measurements:The primary outcome was continued annual follow-up at 5 and 10 years (adjusted odds ratio with 95% confidence interval, LCLaORUCL). Secondary outcomes included mean change in estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) over time and rates of all-cause hospitalization.Methods:We compared long-term follow-up and clinical outcomes for donors with and without early guideline-concordant care, defined as annual physician visit and serum creatinine and albuminuria measurement for the first 2 years post-donation.Results:Of the 460 donors included in this study, 187 (41%) had clinical and laboratory evidence of guideline-concordant follow-up care throughout the first 2 years post-donation. The odds of receiving annual follow-up for donors without early guideline-concordant care were 76% lower at 5 years (aOR 0.180.240.32) and 68% lower at 10 years (aOR 0.230.320.46) compared with donors with early care. The odds of continuing follow-up remained stable over time for both groups. Early guideline-concordant follow-up care did not appear to substantially influence eGFR or hospitalization rates over the longer term.Limitations:We were unable to confirm whether the lack of physician visits or laboratory data in certain donors was due to physician or patient decisions.Conclusions:Although policies directed toward improving early donor follow-up may encourage continued follow-up, additional strategies may be necessary to mitigate long-term donor risks.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.111

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.051
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.302 · 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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueSage Journals DataFrench-language works237,207