↓ Skip to main content

Re‐assessing prolonged cold ischemia time in kidney transplantation through machine learning consensus clustering

Overview of attention for article published in Clinical Transplantation, December 2023
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (85th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (96th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
20 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
1 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
6 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Re‐assessing prolonged cold ischemia time in kidney transplantation through machine learning consensus clustering
Published in
Clinical Transplantation, December 2023
DOI 10.1111/ctr.15201
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline C. Jadlowiec, Charat Thongprayoon, Supawit Tangpanithandee, Rachana Punukollu, Napat Leeaphorn, Matthew Cooper, Wisit Cheungpasitporn

Abstract

We aimed to cluster deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged cold ischemia time (CIT) using an unsupervised machine learning approach. We performed consensus cluster analysis on 11 615 deceased donor kidney transplant patients with CIT exceeding 24 h using OPTN/UNOS data from 2015 to 2019. Cluster characteristics of clinical significance were identified, and post-transplant outcomes were compared. Consensus cluster analysis identified two clinically distinct clusters. Cluster 1 was characterized by young, non-diabetic patients who received kidney transplants from young, non-hypertensive, non-ECD deceased donors with lower KDPI scores. In contrast, the patients in cluster 2 were older and more likely to have diabetes. Cluster 2 recipients were more likely to receive transplants from older donors with a higher KDPI. There was lower use of machine perfusion in Cluster 1 and incrementally longer CIT in Cluster 2. Cluster 2 had a higher incidence of delayed graft function (42% vs. 29%), and lower 1-year patient (95% vs. 98%) and death-censored (95% vs. 97%) graft survival compared to Cluster 1. Unsupervised machine learning characterized deceased donor kidney transplant recipients with prolonged CIT into two clusters with differing outcomes. Although Cluster 1 had more favorable recipient and donor characteristics and better survival, the outcomes observed in Cluster 2 were also satisfactory. Overall, both clusters demonstrated good survival suggesting opportunities for transplant centers to incrementally increase CIT.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 20 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 6 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 6 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 1 17%
Researcher 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science 1 17%
Engineering 1 17%
Unknown 4 67%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 December 2023.
All research outputs
#3,443,803
of 26,083,840 outputs
Outputs from Clinical Transplantation
#122
of 1,655 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#53,496
of 377,778 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Clinical Transplantation
#1
of 29 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,083,840 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,655 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.1. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 377,778 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 29 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.