Risk Factors of Post‐Traumatic Stress in Pediatric Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Life with end‐stage organ failure is accompanied by an accumulation of traumatic medical or surgical experiences. Despite recovery after solid organ transplantation (SOT), many children and adolescents develop post‐traumatic stress symptoms (PTSS). PTSS remain underappreciated as a major comorbidity in SOT programs, despite their association with decreased quality of life. Methods We conducted a retrospective, cross‐sectional study of 86 pediatric SOT recipients (17 heart, 44 kidney, and 25 liver) to evaluate potential determinants of PTSS. Trauma symptoms were measured by the Child Trauma Screening Questionnaire (CTSQ). Demographic, baseline, and contemporaneous factors were tested for independent association with CTSQ scores. Results The median post‐transplant CTSQ score was 2 (IQR 1–4), and 22% were identified as high risk (score ≥5) for PTSD. Higher CTSQ scores were independently associated with the number of ICU days within the previous 12 months, the number of medications (complexity), and involvement with foster care in the primary model ( R 2 [adj.] = 0.26). The addition of the Family Impact Module improved the overall model ( R 2 [adj.] = 0.33), wherein higher family functioning was independently associated with lower CTSQ scores. An exploratory analysis of pre‐transplant patients ( n = 34) found a median pre‐transplant CTSQ of 2 (IQR 1–6), suggesting that PTSS are onset before transplant and persist afterward. Conclusions PTSS are highly prevalent in the SOT population. Risk factors include recent adverse medical experiences and complexity, whereas family stability may be protective. Additional research is needed to improve early ascertainment and support for patients at high risk of developing PTSS throughout their transplant journey.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".