Caregiver attitudes towards gastrostomy removal after renal transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrostomy tube (G-tube) removal has been suggested at 3 months following successful renal transplantation (Tx). We noticed a delay in the removal of G-tubes in our pediatric patients following Tx and therefore conducted a cross-sectional single center survey on all renal transplant recipients to assess the causes of delayed G-tube removal. In total, 17 of 23 patients completed the survey, including all patients with G-tubes (n = 10) and seven patients without G-tubes. Median age at Tx of gastrostomy patients was significantly lower than that of patients without a G-tube (median 3.0 yr, range 1.2-4.7 yr vs. median 14 yr, range 6-17 yr, p < 0.0001) and significantly younger than in previous studies on gastrostomies. At the time of the survey, only three of 10 patients had their G-tube removed at 22, 41 and 61 months after Tx at the ages of 3, 5.5 and 9 yr, respectively. The median age at recent follow up of the remaining seven patients was 4.7 yr (range 2.6-8.75 yr). The most important reason for continued use was fluid intake and medication. Results of our survey showed appropriate concern regarding the risk of prolonged use of the gastrostomy. Caregivers felt that benefits of the gastrostomy in the post-transplant period outweighed the risks. Caregivers felt pressured towards removal by the physicians. Our findings support the decision to remove gastrostomies based on individual patient needs and total fluid intake rather than a fixed time following successful Tx.
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".