Cancer Screening Recommendations for Solid Organ Transplant Recipients: A Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Solid organ transplant recipients (SOTRs) are at increased risk of developing and dying from cancer. However, controversies exist around cancer screening in this population owing to reduced life expectancy and competing causes of death. This systematic review assesses the availability, quality and consistency of cancer screening recommendations in clinical practice guidelines (CPGs). We systematically searched bibliographic databases and gray literature to identify CPGs and assessed their quality using AGREE II. Recommendations were extracted along with their supporting evidence. Thirteen guidelines were included in the review. CPGs for kidney recipients were the most frequent source of screening recommendations, and recommendations for skin cancer screening were most frequently presented. Some screening recommendations differed from those for the general population, based on literature demonstrating higher cancer incidence among SOTRs versus direct evidence of screening effectiveness. Relevant stakeholders such as oncology specialists, primary care providers and public health experts were not involved in the formulation of the screening recommendations. In conclusion, although several guidelines make recommendations for cancer screening in SOTRs, the availability of cancer screening recommendations varied considerably by transplanted organ. More studies are required to inform cancer screening recommendations in SOTRs, and guideline development should involve transplant patients, oncologists and cancer screening specialists.
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 | 0.023 | 0.133 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.013 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".