MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999510725 · doi:10.1108/13660750410550548

A review of compliance studies in kidney transplanted adolescents

2004· review· en· W1999510725 on OpenAlex
Joy Mekechuk

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueLeadership in Health Services · 2004
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsStollery Children's HospitalUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCompliance (psychology)MedicineIntensive care medicinePolitical sciencePsychologySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Strong evidence exists that compliance with the treatment regimen is a major problem for many transplant patients. Noncompliance with the treatment regimen is particularly evident among kidney-transplanted adolescents. Research has not examined the adolescents' experience of living with a kidney transplant. Provides a review of the literature seeking to explain the causes of noncompliance in the population group. Although the studies referred to here provide insights into the situation, many lack reliability and validity because of methodological limitations. They also point to a gap in understanding the condition from the point of view of the adolescent. A more useful approach, therefore, is to use a qualitative research methodology. Such an approach has been shown to be useful in a study of diabetic adolescents, and offers promise for the greater understanding of kidney-transplanted adolescents and the impact the medical regimen has on them. With improved understanding comes the ability of health practitioners to better meet their needs in terms of improving the quality of their post-operative lives.

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.

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Systematic reviewlow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.471
GPT teacher head0.487
Teacher spread0.016 · 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