Temporal Changes on the Risks and Complications of Posttransplantion Diabetes Mellitus Following Cardiac Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. Recent changes in the demographic of cardiac donors and recipients have modulated the rate and risk, associated with posttransplant diabetes mellitus (PTDM). We investigated the secular trends of the risk of PTDM at 1 year and 3 years after transplantation over 30 years and explored its effect on major outcomes. Methods. Three hundred and three nondiabetic patients were followed for a minimum of 36 months, after a first cardiac transplantation performed between 1983 and 2011. Based on the year of their transplantation, the patients were divided into 3 eras: (1983-1992 [era 1], 1993-2002 [era 2], and 2003-2011 [era 3]). Results. In eras 1, 2, and 3, the proportions of patients with PTDM at 1 versus 3 years were 23% versus 39%, 21% versus 26%, and 33% versus 38%, respectively. Independent risk factors predicting PTDM at one year were recipient’s age, duration of cold ischemic time, treatment with furosemide, and tacrolimus. There was a trend for overall survival being worse for patients with PTDM in comparison to patients without PTDM (p = 0.08). Patients with PTDM exhibited a significantly higher rate of renal failure over a median follow-up of 10 years (p = 0.03). Conclusion. The development of PTDM following cardiac transplantation approaches 40% at 3 years and has not significantly changed over thirty years. The presence of PTDM is weakly associated with an increased mortality and is significantly associated with a worsening in renal function long-term following cardiac transplantation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".