Transition from pediatric to adult care after solid organ transplantation
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The transition of healthcare for young people with solid organ transplants as they move into adult-centered services has become more significant over recent years as survival has improved. This review examines evidence from recent studies and position statements to determine the current issues relating to transition and transplantation. RECENT FINDINGS: Although there is a universal agreement of the philosophy of transitional care, there is suboptimal adherence to published guidance across disciplines. Similarly, a lack of routine adolescent health screening emphasizes the need for adolescent medicine within transition programs. Interesting preliminary work addressing other aspects of the process transition, namely adherence assessment and promotion and self-management training, awaits data from larger controlled trials. SUMMARY: There is now no doubt in the need for transitional care, but further research is required into the objective evaluations of interventional models, the determinants of transition readiness and the multidimensional assessment of outcome. This factor is true for any chronic condition, and clinicians and researchers should ensure that they look outside their 'specialty box' from time to time and take advantage of the wealth of experience of and evidence from others in the transitional care arena. If we want to move transitional care research forward, collaboration is the key!
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
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 it