International Travel and Exposure Risks in Solid-Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although solid-organ transplant recipients (SOTR) have an increased risk of acquiring illnesses, they may not receive optimal pretravel care. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of travel activities and outcomes among SOTR. METHODS: Two thousand five hundred fifty-four consecutive living SOTR from Mayo Clinic were surveyed regarding travel practices, pretravel counseling, exposure risks, and illness using a previously standardized and validated questionnaire. RESULTS: One thousand one hundred thirty SOTR (44%) responded to the survey and were included in the study. The most common transplanted organs were liver (519 patients) and kidney (515 patients). Three hundred and three (27%) respondents reported travel outside of the United States or Canada after their transplant. Liver recipients were more likely to travel than other organ recipients. Ninety-six percent of travelers reported that they did not seek specific pretravel healthcare before their trip. Forty-nine SOTR (16%) traveled to destinations at higher risk for infectious diseases; travelers to these destinations were more likely to be men (73% vs. 54% of low-infection risk travelers, P=0.018) or born outside the United Stated or Canada (29% vs. 6% P<0.0001). Twenty-four travelers (8%) required medical attention because of illness; illness was more likely among travelers to high-infection risk (18%) than low-risk (6%) destinations, P=0.004. CONCLUSIONS: International travel was common after solid organ transplantation, although the majority traveled to destinations at low risk for infectious disease. Although generally SOTR were able to travel safely, travelers to destinations at high-risk for infection had a significant rate of illness. Pretravel counseling and interventions were infrequent and should be improved.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".