Travel Practices and Associated Risks in Adult Thoracic Transplant Recipients: A Monocentric Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Little is known regarding the travel practices of thoracic organ transplant recipients and their potential associated morbidity. METHODS: A questionnaire was distributed to thoracic organ transplant recipients to capture demographics, risk perception, knowledge regarding vaccination, history of travel outside metropolitan France, pre-travel advice, health issues during travel outside Europe, and travel intentions in the following year. Comparisons were performed between travelers and non-travelers through univariable then multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: 134 patients completed the survey (72% lung, 11% heart, and 17% heart-lung transplant recipients). Twenty-four percent considered themselves at moderately to significantly increased risk of travel-related health issues. Sixty-two patients (47%) had traveled outside metropolitan France. Among 29 subjects who had traveled outside Europe, 22 had received pre-travel advice. Among 62 respondents who had traveled outside metropolitan France, 6 (10%) experienced health issues (all outside Europe), which led to consultation in three cases and hospitalization in one case. Among 117 respondents, 68 (58%) intended to travel within the following year, and 57 (84%) to seek medical advice before departure, predominantly from their transplant physician. In multivariable analysis, being a lung transplant recipient and higher education level were associated with travel outside Europe. The time post-transplantation was longer for all types of travel, when compared to non-travelers. CONCLUSIONS: Almost half of adult thoracic transplant recipients had traveled outside metropolitan France, 22% outside Europe, and 10% of travelers experienced health issues. The suboptimal preparation of these patients underlines the potential benefits of closer interaction between travel medicine specialists and transplant physicians.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".