MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4311287051 · doi:10.1111/petr.14448

Quality of life and psychosocial outcomes of adults who were pediatric solid organ transplant recipients: A systematic review

2022· review· en· W4311287051 on OpenAlexaff
Christianne Laliberté Durish, Jia Lin, Sarah J. Pol, Alameen Damer, Samantha J. Anthony, Jo Wray, Anna Gold

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoInstitute for Clinical Evaluative SciencesSickKids FoundationHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychosocialMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)PopulationSocial supportMEDLINEClinical psychologyGerontologyPediatricsPsychiatryPsychologyEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The number of pediatric SOT recipients surviving into adulthood is increasing. Thus, understanding their psychosocial and QoL outcomes is important. We conducted a systematic review to collate existing literature examining QoL outcomes (physical functioning, psychological functioning, social functioning), as well as risk and protective factors associated with QoL, among adults who underwent SOT during childhood. METHODS: A systematic search of five databases, from inception to January 6, 2021, was conducted to identify articles that reported on QoL outcomes for adults (≥18-year of age) who received a SOT during childhood (<19-year of age). RESULTS: Twenty-five articles met inclusion criteria. Studies examined QoL across a range of SOT populations (liver, kidney, heart). QoL and psychosocial outcomes were variable; however, the majority of studies indicated QoL in this population to be similar to the general population, or at least similar to other chronic illness groups, with the exception of physical and social functioning. Factors related to a more optimal medical course, younger age at transplant and follow-up, and positive psychosocial functioning, were found to be predictive of better QoL outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While several studies indicated QoL to be similar to the general population, the literature is limited in both quantity and quality. No study employed prospective, longitudinal methodologies to systematically evaluate QoL over time and few studies utilized normative-based measures of QoL. Furthermore, several SOT groups were under-represented in the literature (e.g., lung, intestine, multi-visceral). Nonetheless, findings have implications for intervention and clinical decision-making.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.262
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.048
GPT teacher head0.368
Teacher spread0.321 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations5
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207