High Risk of Graft Failure in Emerging Adult Heart Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Emerging adulthood (17-24 years) is a period of high risk for graft failure in kidney transplant. Whether a similar association exists in heart transplant recipients is unknown. We sought to estimate the relative hazards of graft failure at different current ages, compared with patients between 20 and 24 years old. We evaluated 11 473 patients recorded in the Scientific Registry of Transplant Recipients who received a first transplant at <40 years old (1988-2013) and had at least 6 months of graft function. Time-dependent Cox models were used to estimate the association between current age (time-dependent) and failure risk, adjusted for time since transplant and other potential confounders. Failure was defined as death following graft failure or retransplant; observation was censored at death with graft function. There were 2567 failures. Crude age-specific graft failure rates were highest in 21-24 year olds (4.2 per 100 person-years). Compared to individuals with the same time since transplant, 21-24 year olds had significantly higher failure rates than all other age periods except 17-20 years (HR 0.92 [95%CI 0.77, 1.09]) and 25-29 years (0.86 [0.73, 1.03]). Among young first heart transplant recipients, graft failure risks are highest in the period from 17 to 29 years of age.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".