Adherence and Alexithymia in Adolescent Renal Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction Renal transplantation is the best therapeutic option for patients with chronic kidney disease. Non-adherence to immunosuppressive therapy results in renal graft rejection and loss. The adolescent population is the most vulnerable and least adherent to post-transplant therapy, which is why it is advisable to assess adherence in this age group. Etymologically,‘alexithymia’ means “absence of words for emotions [A1] ”, and it has been described in patients with psychosomatic disorders, showing limitations in their emotional functioning, impoverished inner fantasy lives, and inability to find appropriate words to describe their feelings. This study aims at describing alexithymia and its relation to therapy non-adherence in a group of adolescent renal transplant patients (ARTPs). Materials and Methods ARTPs between 18 and 24 years of age, currently followed up by an adult transplant team, but transplanted at a pediatric institution, were assessed. The validated Simplified Medication Adherence Questionnaire (SMAQ) and the Latin American Consensual Toronto Alexithymia Scale (LAC TAS-20) were administered to a group of adolescents. Results Twenty-eight ARTPs currently followed up at our service were surveyed. Their average age was 20.35 (18-24), and gender distribution was 16 (57.14%) women and 12 (42.86%) men. The prevalence of non-adherence in all the patients studied was 75% (21/28). Acute rejections were found in 35.7% (10/28) of all the ARTPs. In the group of non-adherent ARTPs, rejection accounted for 47.61% (10/21), while there was no rejection in the adherent group (0/7). p=0.02 Alexithymia was found in 82.14% of all the ARTPs (23/28). The presence of alexithymia accounted for 71.42% (5/7) in the group of adherent ARTPs and 85.71% (18/21) in the group of non-adherent ARTPs. p=NS Conclusions Non-adherence in ARTPs is high and increases the risk of rejection. The presence of alexithymia in this risk group may be related to non-adherence to immunosuppressive therapy. The number of patients should be increased to confirm these data.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".