Duration of corticosteroid use and long‐term outcomes after adult heart transplantation: A contemporary analysis of the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Long-term corticosteroid (CS) maintenance remains an effective option for immunosuppression following heart transplantation. We used the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Registry to examine characteristics and long-term survival among heart transplant recipients with different duration of CS therapy. METHODS: Primary adult heart recipients transplanted between 2000 and 2008 who survived at least 5 years were categorized into three groups according to CS use: early withdrawal (≤2 years) (EARLY D/C), late withdrawal (between 2 and 5 years) (LATE D/C), or long-term use (>5 years) (LONG-TERM). Recipient and donor characteristics, post-transplant morbidities, and mortality were compared among groups. Kaplan-Meier was used to estimate survival up to 10 years post-transplant. RESULTS: The study cohort included 8161 recipients (2043 in EARLY D/C; 2031 in LATE D/C; and 4087 in LONG-TERM). LONG-TERM use of CS decreased over time, from 60% in 2000 to 43% in 2008, while EARLY D/C increased from 19% to 33%, respectively. Survival at 10 years after transplant was lower among the LONG-TERM group (73% vs EARLY D/C 82% vs LATE D/C 80%; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: In this large multinational cohort, the practice of long-term CS maintenance was associated with lower long-term survival compared with shorter CS use.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".