Transplant Tourism in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Transplant "tourism" typically refers to the practice of traveling outside the country of residence to obtain organ transplantation. This study describes the characteristics and outcomes of 33 kidney transplant recipients who traveled abroad for transplant and returned to University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) for follow-up. DESIGN, SETTINGS, PARTICIPANTS, & MEASUREMENTS: Posttransplantation outcomes were compared between tourists and a matched cohort of patients who underwent transplantation at UCLA (matched for age, race, transplant year, dialysis time, previous transplantation, and donor type). Median follow-up time was 487 d (range 68 to 3056). RESULTS: Compared with all patients who underwent transplantation at UCLA, tourists included more Asians and had shorter dialysis times. Most patients traveled to their region of ethnicity with the majority undergoing transplantation in China (44%), Iran (16%), and the Philippines (13%). Living unrelated transplants were most common. Tourists presented to UCLA a median of 35 d after transplantation. Four patients required urgent hospitalization, three of whom lost their grafts. Seventeen (52%) patients had infections, with nine requiring hospitalization. One patient lost her graft and subsequently died from complications related to donor-contracted hepatitis B. One-year graft survival was 89% for tourists and 98% for the matched UCLA cohort (P = 0.75). The rate of acute rejection at 1 yr was 30% in tourists and 12% in the matched cohort. CONCLUSIONS: Tourists had a more complex posttransplantation course with a higher incidence of acute rejection and severe infectious complications.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".