Tacrolimus IPV Group Membership Does Not Consistently Track With Electronically Monitored or Self-reported Adherence in Adolescent and Young Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background. High intrapatient variability (IPV) of tacrolimus trough concentrations (SD ≥ 2, coefficient of variation (CV%) ≥ 30) is associated with rejection and graft loss and may indicate nonadherence. However, the association between tacrolimus IPV and electronically monitored or self-reported adherence is unknown. Methods. This secondary analysis of the TAKE-IT (Teen Adherence in Kidney Transplant Effectiveness of Intervention Trial) compared electronically monitored and self-reported adherence between participants with high and low tacrolimus IPV among 103 adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients (mean age = 15.18 y, 59% male, 60% White, 65% >1-y posttransplant). Results. Electronically monitored daily taking and timing adherence were not significantly associated with tacrolimus IPV group in binomial generalized linear mixed effects models: Participants with tacrolimus SD ≥ 2 or CV% ≥ 30 were no less likely to take each daily dose than those below these cutoffs (SD < versus ≥ 2: odds ratio [OR]; 0.84, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.48-1.47; P = 0.54 and CV% < versus ≥ 30: OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.43-1.21; P = 0.22). Participants with tacrolimus SD ≥ 2 or CV% ≥ 30 were no less likely to take each daily dose on time than those below these cutoffs (SD < versus ≥ 2: OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.40-1.23; P = 0.21 and CV% < versus ≥ 30: OR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.40-1.16; P = 0.15). Electronically monitored averages of doses taken, doses taken early/late, and differences from expected dose time were associated with tacrolimus IPV ( P < 0.05) but were poor classifiers of IPV group membership (area under the curve < 0.70). Self-reported adherence was not associated with tacrolimus IPV. Conclusions. Tacrolimus IPV group membership does not consistently track with behavioral adherence measures. Relying on tacrolimus IPV group membership may misidentify nonadherence in adolescent and young adult kidney transplant recipients.
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) | 0.001 | 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".