Therapeutic needs in solid organ transplant recipients: The American Society of Transplantation patient survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Society of Transplantation commissioned a survey assessing transplant recipients' perceptions of unmet immunosuppressant needs. Topics included medication side effects, treatment burden, health-related quality of life, adherence, self-efficacy, costs, trust, and discrimination; 10 091 responses were included (9543 adults, 548 pediatric respondents) representing 232 transplant centers. Respondents were a mean of 6.6 years posttransplant and were well-represented across age, gender, race, ethnicity, organ, employment, insurance, and immunosuppression. Nearly all (92%) respondents reported at least 1 side effect (median of 3); most side effects occurred "often" or "always." The majority (54%) of side effects were rated as having a "moderate" or "great deal" of impact on daily life. Side effects with the greatest daily burden included skin cancer, pain/neuropathy, skin issues, kidney disease, memory/brain fog, diabetes, cancer, and hypertension. Fatigue, headache, insomnia, tremors, and mood/depression/anxiety were the most selected side effects. Health-related quality of life was rated as "fair" to "good." Trust in providers, self-efficacy, and medication adherence were rated highly, though 25% reported skipping doses due to side effects, and 40% skipped due to costs. The findings demonstrate that side effects are nearly universally experienced and have a major burden on daily life. Immunosuppression induces a heavy toll on transplant recipients; there is an urgent need for new treatments to address these unmet needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".