MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1988636092 · doi:10.1111/petr.12342

Increase in <i>de novo</i> food allergies after pediatric liver transplantation: Tacrolimus vs. cyclosporine immunosuppression

2014· article· en· W1988636092 on OpenAlexaff
M. Lebel, Hugo Chapdelaine, Louis Paradis, Anne Des Roches, Fernando Álvarez

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-Justine
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacrolimusMedicineImmunosuppressionIncidence (geometry)Liver transplantationTransplantationInternal medicinePopulationComplicationSurgeryGastroenterologyPediatrics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.101
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.231 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations25
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicFood Allergy and Anaphylaxis ResearchFrench-language works237,207