MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4416865809 · doi:10.1681/asn.2025mnd5n4cx

Two-Step Screening for Anxiety Symptoms Among Kidney and Kidney-Pancreas Transplant Recipients

2025· article· en· W4416865809 on OpenAlexaffabout
Benjamin Elliott Kopman, Umesh Ananthasayanam, Jad Fadlallah, Folayemi Ayibiowu, Nolan James Marblestone, Ana Samudio, Devron J. Swaby, Aghna Wasim, Istvan Mucsi

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyKidney transplantKidney transplantationYoung adultPsychometricsMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Anxiety among Kidney and Kidney-Pancreas transplant recipients (KTR, KPTR) is associated with poor outcomes. Systematic screening using patient-reported outcome measures (PROM) may identify individuals needing further assessment. We assessed the accuracy and efficiency of two-step screening approaches to identify potentially clinically relevant anxiety among KTR and KPTR. Methods: Adult, stable KTR, and KPTR in Toronto, Canada completed the Patient-Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System - Anxiety (PROMIS-A) Computer Adaptive Test, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD7) questionnaires. Moderate/severe anxiety was defined as GAD7 ≥10. We simulated two-step screening scenarios, as if participants first completed an ultra-brief pre-screener (GAD2; or PROMIS-A screener) followed by PROMIS-A onlu if pre-screened positive. Different pre-screener cutoffs (GAD2 2 and 3; PROMIS-A screener ≥1), and PROMIS-A cut-offs (PROMIS-A 55-60) were evaluated. Screening performance was assessed using sensitivity, specificity (>80% benchmark). Item burden was assessed for each scenario. Results: Among 283 participants (241 KTR, 42 KPTR), mean(SD) age was 53(12) years; 58% male; GAD7 ≥10 in 13%. The GAD-2 ≥3 followed by PROMIS-A ≥55 scenario yielded the best performance (sensitivity 0.81, specificity 0.97). The PROMIS-A screener ≥1 followed by PROMIS-A ≥58 also performed well (sensitivity 0.86, specificity 0.75). GAD7 had the highest item burden, with 1,981 items completed by the study sample (7/person). PROMIS-A, participants completed 1,415 items (5/per person). Of the two-step scenarios, PROMIS-A screener ≥1 followed by PROMIS-A reduced burden (876 items completed, 3/person) by 56% and 38%, compared to GAD7 and PROMIS-A, respectively. The GAD2 ≥3 followed by PROMIS-A scenario reduced burden (709 items completed, 3/person) by 64% and 50%, compared to GAD7 and PROMIS-A, respectively. Conclusion: The proposed two-step screening scenarios demonstrated acceptable screening performance with low item burden. Patients who screen positive will need clinical assessment. These results need to be confirmed using clinical diagnosis as the referent - the overlap between GAD2 and GAD7 may have inflated the results of the scenarios including GAD2 Funding: Private Foundation Support, Government Support – Non-U.S.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
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 score0.009
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.282 · 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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Society of Nephrology→Same topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments→French-language works237,207→