MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410291331 · doi:10.1097/txd.0000000000001806

Tacrolimus IPV Group Membership Does Not Consistently Track With Electronically Monitored or Self-reported Adherence in Adolescent and Young Adult Kidney Transplant Recipients

2025· article· en· W4410291331 on OpenAlexaff
Cyd K. Eaton, Cozumel S. Pruette, Kristin A. Riekert, Nazanin Yousefzadeh, Ahna L. H. Pai, Sandra Amaral, Vikas R. Dharnidharka, Bärbel Knaüper, Jodi M. Smith, Susan L. Furth, Bethany J. Foster

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation Direct · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreMcGill University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineTacrolimusConfidence intervalKidney transplantOdds ratioInternal medicineKidney transplantationKidneyTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.270 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantation DirectSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207