Psychological profile of adolescents with a kidney transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
To describe the psychological profile of renal transplant adolescents compared to healthy peers and to adolescents with CKD, three groups of adolescents aged 12-18 yr were selected: TX, CX, and adolescents with CKD. Psychiatric symptoms and disorders were evaluated through direct interviews (K-SADS-PL) and self-report questionnaires (YSR and CBCL). Forty TX (14 LRD and 26 DD transplant recipients), 40 CX and 20 CKD were included. Twelve of 40 (30%) TX, three of 20 (15%) CKD, and three of 40 (7.5%) CX had a history of learning difficulties (p = 0.03). Compared to CX, TX had lower total YSR competencies score (p = 0.028) and lower total CBCL competencies score (p = 0.003). Twenty-six of 40 (65%) TX, 12 of 20 (60%) CKD and 15 of 40 (37.5%) CX (p = 0.038) met DSM-IV diagnostic criteria for lifetime psychiatric disorder, with rates of depressive disorder of 35% among TX and CKD compared to 15.2% among CX (p = 0.043). Eight of 40 (20%) TX had a history of simple phobia. Nine of 40 (22.5%) TX met diagnostic criteria for ADHD as compared to one of 20 (5%) CKD and three of 40 (7.5%) CX. In the TX group, we found no significant differences in educational and psychiatric variables between LRD and DD. In conclusion, we found a high prevalence of psychiatric morbidity (depression, phobia, ADHD), educational impairment and social competence problems in the TX group. CKD scored in between TX and CX on most measures.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".