Establishing a Core Outcome Measure for Life Participation: A Standardized Outcomes in Nephrology-kidney Transplantation Consensus Workshop Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Kidney transplantation confers substantial survival and quality of life benefits for many patients with end-stage kidney disease compared with dialysis, but complications and side effects of immunosuppression can impair participation in daily life activities. Life participation is a critically important patient-reported outcome for kidney transplant recipients but is infrequently and inconsistently measured in trials. We convened a consensus workshop on establishing an outcome measure for life participation for use in all trials in kidney transplantation. METHODS: Twenty-five (43%) kidney transplant recipients/caregivers and 33 (57%) health professionals from 8 countries participated in 6 facilitated breakout group discussions. Transcripts were analyzed thematically. RESULTS: Four themes were identified. Returning to normality conveyed the patients' goals to fulfill their roles (ie, in their family, work, and community) and reestablish a normal lifestyle after transplant. Recognizing the diverse meaning and activities of "life" explicitly acknowledged life participation as a subjective concept that could refer to different activities (eg, employment, recreation, family duties) for each individual patient. Capturing vulnerability and fluctuations posttransplant (eg, due to complications and side-effects) distinguished between experiences in the first year posttransplant and the long-term impact of transplantation. Having a scientifically rigorous, feasible, and meaningful measure was expected to enable consistent and frequent assessment of life participation in trials in kidney transplantation. CONCLUSIONS: A feasible and validated core outcome measure for life participation is needed so that this critically important patient-reported outcome can be consistently and meaningfully assessed in trials in kidney transplantation to inform decision making and care of recipients.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".