MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4416573231 · doi:10.1111/ctr.70304

Correlation Between Health Literacy and Tacrolimus Variability in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients

2025· article· en· W4416573231 on OpenAlexaff
Astrid Bacle, Pauline Blanc‐Petitjean, Elouan Demay, Sarah Pelletier, Virginie Migeot, Marie‐Claude Langevin, Jean‐Philippe Adam

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Transplantation · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacrolimusCorrelationHealth literacyPsychological interventionOrgan transplantationTransplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Adherence to immunosuppressive therapy is crucial for successful outcomes in solid organ transplantation. Tacrolimus intra-patient variability (%CV) is a validated marker of adherence and has been associated with graft outcomes. Health literacy (HL), a modifiable factor, may influence this variability, but its role remains unexplored. METHODS: We conducted a prospective observational study including adult kidney, liver, and lung transplant recipients receiving tacrolimus. HL was assessed using the Short Test of Functional Health Literacy in Adults (S-TOFHLA); a score <23 indicated insufficient HL. Tacrolimus %CV was calculated over 6 months post-discharge. Linear regression models, adjusted for sociodemographic variables, evaluated the association between HL and %CV. RESULTS: Ninety-eight patients were included (kidney: n = 38, liver: n = 24, lung: n = 36). Patients with insufficient HL had higher %CV than those with sufficient HL (31.5% vs. 16.1%, p < 0.05). HL remained independently associated with %CV after adjusting for age and transplant type (β = -1.60, SE = 0.17, p < 0.05). The final model explained 53% of %CV variability. CONCLUSIONS: HL is independently associated with tacrolimus variability. HL screening and targeted educational interventions may help improve medication stability and long-term transplant outcomes.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.078
Threshold uncertainty score0.675

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.040
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.388 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207