Differences in medication adherence by sex and organ type among adolescent and young adult solid organ transplant recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Identification of differences in medication adherence by sex or organ type may help in planning interventions to optimize outcomes. We compared immunosuppressive medication adherence between males and females, and between kidney, liver and heart transplant recipients. METHODS: This multicenter study of prevalent kidney, liver and heart transplant recipients 14-25 years assessed adherence 3 times (0, 3, 6 months post-enrollment) with the BAASIS self-report tool. At each visit, participants were classified as adherent if they missed no doses in the prior 4 weeks and non-adherent otherwise. Adherence was also assessed using the coefficient of variation (CV) of tacrolimus trough levels; CV < 30% was classified as adherent. We used multivariable mixed effects logistic regression models adjusted for potential confounders to compare adherence by sex and by organ. RESULTS: Across all visits, males (n = 150, median age 20.4 years, IQR 17.2-23.3) had lower odds of self-reported adherence than females (n = 120, median age 19.8 years, IQR 17.1-22.7) (OR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21-0.80) but higher odds of adherence by tacrolimus CV (OR 2.50, 95% CI 1.30-4.82). No significant differences in adherence (by self-report or tacrolimus CV) were noted between the 184 kidney, 58 liver, and 28 heart recipients. CONCLUSION: Females show better self-reported adherence than males but greater variability in tacrolimus levels. Social desirability bias, more common in females than males, may contribute to better self-reported adherence among females. Higher tacrolimus variability among females may reflect biologic differences in tacrolimus metabolism between males and females rather than sex differences in adherence. There were no significant differences in adherence by organ type.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".