Graft Failure and Adaptation Period to Adult Healthcare Centers in Pediatric Renal Transplant Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Transfer from pediatric to adult care may require a period of adaptation to the new healthcare environment. We sought to determine whether this adaptation period was associated with an increased risk of graft failure. METHODS: Children (age, 0-18 years) recorded in the Canadian Organ Replacement Register who received a first kidney transplant in a pediatric health center between 1992 and 2007, and who had more than or equal to 3 months of graft function, were followed up until death, loss to follow-up, or December 31, 2007. Cox proportional hazards models were used to estimate the excess risk associated with a period of adaptation to adult-oriented care, defined as the interval 0.5 years before to 2.5 years after the first recorded adult care visit. Models were adjusted for age, gender, donor source, and ethnicity. RESULTS: Of the 413 patients evaluated, 149 were transferred to adult care during study period. In total, 78 (18.9%) patients experienced graft failure-23 during the adaptation period. Compared with the period before adaptation, the adjusted hazard ratio for graft loss within the adaptation period was 2.24 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.19-4.20). The adjusted graft failure rate was 2.26 (1.04-4.93) times higher after 18 years of age than between 0 and 13 years. Aboriginal ethnicity and deceased donor source were also associated with a significantly higher risk of graft failure. CONCLUSIONS: The period of adaptation to adult-oriented care is associated with a high risk of graft failure in pediatric renal transplant patients.
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".