MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2922389342 · doi:10.1111/ctr.13529

Travel medicine, transplant tourism, and the solid organ transplant recipient—Guidelines from the American Society of Transplantation Infectious Diseases Community of Practice

2019· article· en· W2922389342 on OpenAlexaff
C. Arianne Buchan, Camille N. Kotton

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTravel-related health issues
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTransplantationIntensive care medicineTravel medicineOrgan transplantationMalariaFamily medicineSurgeryImmunologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

These updated guidelines from the Infectious Diseases Community of Practice of the American Society of Transplantation review recommendations for prevention and management of travel-related infection in solid organ transplant (SOT) recipients as well as risks associated with transplant tourism. Counseling regarding travel post-transplant should be included during the pre-transplant evaluation, and all SOT recipients should be seen by a travel medicine specialist prior to traveling to destinations with higher rates of infection. Patients should be advised on vaccine-preventable illnesses as well as any need for prophylaxis (ie, malaria) based on their individual travel itineraries. Information with regards to specific recommendations for vaccines and prophylactic medications, along with drug-drug interactions, is summarized. Counseling should be provided for modifiable risks and exposures (ie, food and water safety, and insect bite prevention) as well as non-infectious travel topics. These guidelines also briefly address risks associated with transplant tourism and specific infections to consider if patients seek care for transplants done in foreign countries.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.046

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0040.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.004

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.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.353 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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".

Quick stats

Citations69
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicTravel-related health issuesFrench-language works237,207