Long-Term Care of the Pediatric Kidney Transplant Recipient
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pediatric kidney transplant recipients are distinguished from adult recipients by the need for many decades of graft function, the potential effect of CKD on neurodevelopment, and the changing immune environment of a developing human. The entire life of an individual who receives a transplant as a child is colored by their status as a transplant recipient. Not only must these young recipients negotiate all of the usual challenges of emerging adulthood (transition from school to work, romantic relationships, achieving independence from parents), but they must learn to manage a life-threatening medical condition independently. Regardless of the age at transplantation, graft failure rates are higher during adolescence and young adulthood than at any other age. All pediatric transplant recipients must pass through this high-risk period. Factors contributing to the high graft failure rates in this period include poor adherence to treatment, potentially exacerbated by the transfer of care from pediatric- to adult-oriented care providers, and perhaps an increased potency of the immune response. We describe the characteristics of pediatric kidney transplant recipients, particularly those factors that may influence their care throughout their lives. We also discuss the risks associated with the transition from pediatric- to adult-oriented care and provide some suggestions to optimize the transition to adult-oriented transplant care and long-term outcomes.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".