The TAKE-IT study: aims, design, and methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Effective interventions to improve immunosuppressive medication adherence among adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients are desperately needed. This paper describes the aims, design, and methods of the Teen Adherence in Kidney transplant, Effectiveness of Intervention Trial (TAKE-IT) study. DESIGN AND METHODS: TAKE-IT is a multicentre, prospective, open-label, parallel arm randomized controlled trial that aims to determine the effectiveness of a clinic-based intervention, including educational, organizational, and behavioural components, in improving immunosuppressive medication adherence among adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients. Individuals between 11 and 24 years of age who are at least 3 months post-transplant and followed in one of the eight participating pediatric kidney transplant programs, or their affiliated adult transplant programs are eligible to participate. All participating centers are tertiary care pediatric hospitals in Canada or the United States. Adherence is monitored using an electronic multi-dose pillbox for all participants during a 3-month run-in period, followed by a 12-month intervention interval. The primary outcome is 'taking adherence', defined as the proportion of prescribed doses of immunosuppressive medications that were taken, as measured using electronic monitoring.All participants meet with the study 'Coach' at 3 month intervals. The intervention, administered by trained lay personnel, targets common adherence barriers. In addition to forming an Adherence Support Team, intervention participants identify personal barriers to adherence and use Action-focused problem-solving to address them, have their electronic adherence data fed back to them, and have the option to receive email, text message, or visual cue dose reminders. Participants in the control group meet with the coach but do not receive the other components of the intervention. The study aims to have 75 participants in each group complete the study. DISCUSSION: Since recruitment began in Feb. 2012, 198 adolescents have been approached to participate, of whom 130 have completed a baseline visit. As of March 31, 2014, 125 had been randomized, and 86, 68, 61, and 50 participants had completed 6-month, 9-month, 12-month, and 15-month visits respectively. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov registration NCT01356277 (May 17, 2011).
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 | 0.001 | 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".