A Canadian Survey on Adverse Symptoms Experienced by Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Adverse symptoms experienced by solid organ transplant recipients remain largely unexplored despite their purported frequency. OBJECTIVE: To characterize patient perspectives on adverse symptoms, identifying the most problematic symptoms and the perceived cause and treatability, and to evaluate their impact on quality of life (QoL) and medication adherence. METHODS: An electronic survey was distributed to members of the Canadian Transplant Association, to characterize perceptions on symptom experience (Modified Transplant Symptom Occurrence and Distress Scale), and QoL (Short Form-12), medication adherence (Basel Assessment of Adherence to Immunosuppressive Medications Scale), demographics, and clinical situation. RESULTS: The questionnaire was distributed to 249 solid organ transplant recipients and achieved a 51% response rate (N = 127). Respondents reported a mean of 25 (standard deviation 10) adverse symptoms each. In women, the most prevalent and distressing symptoms were tiredness, lack of energy, sleep difficulties, difficulty concentrating or memory problems, diarrhea, joint pain, and depression. In men, they were tiredness, flatulence, lack of energy, sleep difficulties, and erectile problems. With the exception of flatulence, these symptoms were more often perceived to be caused by medical conditions rather than by immunosuppressants or other medications. Quality of life was similar to the general public, with mean physical and mental component scores of 47.4 (9.9) and 52.1 (8.2), respectively (relative to a US average of 50 [10]). However, QoL scores inversely correlated to the number of symptoms reported and were higher in patients who perceived all symptoms to be treatable. CONCLUSION: Adverse symptoms may impact patient well-being. Perceived cause and treatability should be further explored.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".