Comparison of All-Cause Mortality Between Canadian Kidney Transplant Recipients and Patients With Cancer: A Population-Based Cohort Study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background:Understanding rates of mortality in kidney transplant recipients relative to other common diseases can enhance our understanding of the mortality burden in kidney transplant recipients.Objective:To compare the survival probability in Canadian female and male kidney transplant recipients with patients with common cancers (female: breast, colorectal, lung, or pancreas; male: prostate, colorectal, lung, or pancreas) in a contemporary population.Design:Population-based cohort study using linked administrative health care databases.Setting:Ontario, Canada.Patients:A total of 6888 incident kidney transplant recipients (median age was 50 and 51 years in females and males, respectively) and a total of 532 452 incident patients with cancer (median age range 60 to 72 years across cancer types) from 1997 to 2015.Measurements:All-cause mortality.Methods:The survival of study participants was described using the Kaplan-Meier product limit estimator. The rate of survival was compared between kidney transplant recipients and patients with cancer using extended Cox regression with a Heaviside function.Results:Kidney transplant recipients had a higher survival probability compared with all cancer types. For example, male kidney transplant recipients had a 5-year survival probability of 89.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 88.6%-90.5%) compared with 83.3% (95% CI: 83.1%-83.5%) in patients with prostate cancer, and 14.0% (95% CI: 13.7%-14.3%), 56.1% (95% CI: 55.7%-56.5%), and 9.1% (95% CI: 8.5%-9.7%) in patients with lung, colorectal, and pancreas cancer, respectively. After presenting survival probabilities by age at cohort entry and after adjusting for clinical characteristics, similar results were found with a few exceptions. Unlike the unadjusted analysis, in the adjusted analysis males with prostate cancer had a significantly higher survival compared with kidney transplant recipients and females with breast cancer had higher survival compared with kidney transplant recipients at 2+ years of follow-up. In a subpopulation of the cohort who had information available on cancer stage (ie, stages 1-4), we generally found similar results to our primary analysis with kidney transplant recipients having a higher survival probability compared with each cancer stage. However, female kidney transplant recipients had a lower survival probability compared with females with stage 1 breast cancer, whereas male kidney transplant recipients had a lower survival probability compared with males with stage 1 to 3 prostate cancer.Limitations:External generalizability, residual confounding, and cancer stage could only be provided for a subpopulation.Conclusion:Mortality in kidney transplant recipients is lower than in patients with several cancer types. These results improve our understanding of the mortality burden in this population and reaffirm kidney transplantation as a good treatment option for end-stage kidney disease but also highlight the continuing need to improve posttransplant survival.Trial registration:This is not applicable as this is a population-based cohort study and not a clinical trial.
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.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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 it