RISK OF HYPERTENSIVE DISORDERS IN PREGNANCY OF LIVING KIDNEY DONORS: A PILOT COHORT STUDY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The majority of living kidney donors is women. Female donors often ask their physicians whether donation will have any effect on their future pregnancies. Previous studies conclude that living donation poses no great harm for women who wish to become pregnant after donation. In Ontario, we are able to study this issue using large health care databases, and data from the Trillium Gift of Life Network. In this pilot study, hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (gestational hypertension, preeclampsia, eclampsia) were compared among kidney donors and healthy women who did not become kidney donors. 55 donors were studied who became pregnant following kidney donation comparing them to 502 matched female controls. Controls were matched on age, income, date of child birth, date of last pregnancy, history of previous pregnancy with hypertensive complications, and current multiple gestations. There was no statistically significant difference in the risk of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy between donors and controls (13% vs. 8%; OR 1.78; 95% Cl 0.75 to 4.19; p-value=0.19). However, the wide confidence interval and small sample size leaves uncertainty on any conclusions to be drawn. The results of this pilot study provide the foundation for a more definitive study, to rule out a smaller yet clinically important risk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".