Increase in <i>de novo</i> food allergies after pediatric liver transplantation: Tacrolimus vs. cyclosporine immunosuppression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Post-TAFA is an uncommon but serious complication of organ transplantation. This study aimed to compare the incidence of FA in CsA and tacrolimus-treated children following OLT and identify risk factors. The medical charts of all patients who underwent OLT at our institution were reviewed. Between 1985 and 2010, 218 OLTs were performed on 188 pediatric recipients, of which 154 were included in the study. Three patients (3%) of the 102 receiving CsA developed FA, compared with nine (17%) in the 52 tacrolimus-treated patients, the latter exceeding general population reported FA prevalence (RR 5.88; 95% CI: 1.66-20.81). All TAFA cases underwent transplantation before the age of three with an incidence of 29% (9/31) in the tacrolimus-treated children in comparison with 7% (3/41) in the CsA group (RR 3.97; 95% CI: 1.17-13.45). Eosinophilia was present in 81% of children receiving tacrolimus compared with 54% in the CsA group (p = 0.002). We observed a statistically significant increase incidence of FA in tacrolimus-treated children following an OLT and those under the age of three are particularly vulnerable. The underlying process is still unknown and probably multifactorial.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".