Graft Loss in Pediatric and Young Adult Kidney Transplantation in New Zealand: Who Is at Greatest Risk and When?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Much is reported regarding the detrimental effect of transfer to adult services for adolescent and young adult (AYA) kidney transplant (KT) recipients. However, AYA recipient age independent of time post-KT, and not relating to transfer of care, is also a strong predictor of graft loss. We assessed KT graft survival if experiencing solely pediatric (PO) or adult services (AO) versus transfer from pediatric to adult services (PTA). METHODS: A retrospective cohort analysis of all first kidney transplant recipients between birth-24 years of age, from 2000 to 2019 in New Zealand. Participant identification and data were obtained via the Australia and New Zealand Dialysis and Transplantation registry. Primary outcome was graft survival stratified by service type. Cox proportional hazard modeling assessed independent risk factors of graft loss. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four children and AYA with a median follow-up of 7.3 years were included. Graft survival stratified by service provision group was not different. The incidence rate of graft loss was 37, 34, and 45 per 1000 persons per year for PO, PTA, and AO respectively. Crude age-specific graft failure rates were highest for 22-24-year-olds with inferior outcomes starting from age 16, peaking at 24 years. CONCLUSIONS: Older adolescence and young adulthood reflect a high-risk period for KT loss. Transfer to adult services was not associated with worse graft survival compared to those experiencing either AO or PO alone. Improved models of care are needed to improve graft survival in this vulnerable population within New Zealand.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".