It takes a village: primary care of the pediatric liver transplant recipient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Long-term survival is now the rule rather than the exception for infants and children who undergo liver transplantation for end-stage liver disease, metabolic liver conditions and a variety of other indications. Pediatricians and primary care providers play vital roles in the care and management of this patient population. The purpose of this review is to highlight key aspects important to the care of the pediatric liver transplant recipient. RECENT FINDINGS: Significant advances in immunosuppressive therapies and surgical techniques have contributed to improved graft and patient survival rates, shifting the focus beyond immediate survival to strategies to minimize comorbidities related to long-term immunosuppression during growing years, attend to patient and parent-reported outcomes and enhance quality of life. A multidisciplinary approach allows for monitoring and surveillance of both routine (growth, nutritional rehabilitation, cognitive development, mental and psychosocial health, contraception and daily activities) and transplant-related (adverse effects of immunosuppression, susceptible infections, extra-hepatic systems, transition from childhood to adolescence to adulthood) themes. SUMMARY: Effective communication between the primary care physician and the transplant team is imperative for optimizing best outcomes. The primary care provider should be aware of the multifacet nature of posttransplant management, which includes medication regimens, common complications and infections.
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".