A Randomized, Multicenter Study of Steroid Avoidance, Early Steroid Withdrawal or Standard Steroid Therapy in Kidney Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In a randomized, open-label, multicenter study, de novo renal transplant patients received no steroids (n = 112), steroids to day 7 (n = 115), or standard steroids (n = 109) with cyclosporine microemulsion (CsA-ME), enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS) and basiliximab. The primary objective, to demonstrate noninferiority of 12-month GFR in the steroid-free or steroid-withdrawal groups versus standard steroids, was not met in the intent-to-treat population. However, investigational groups were not inferior to standard steroids in the observed-case analysis. Median 12-month GFR was not significantly different in the steroid-free or steroid-withdrawal groups (58.6 mL/min/1.73 m(2) and 59.1 mL/min/1.73 m(2)) versus standard steroids (60.8 mL/min/1.73 m(2)). The 12-month incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR), graft loss or death was 36.0% in the steroid-free group (p = 0.007 vs. standard steroids), 29.6% with steroid withdrawal (N.S.) and 19.3% with standard steroids. BPAR was significantly less frequent with standard steroids than either of the other two regimens. Reduced de novo use of antidiabetic and lipid-lowering medication, triglycerides and weight gain were observed in one or both steroid-minimization group versus standard steroids. For standard-risk renal transplant patients receiving CsA-ME, EC-MPS and basiliximab, steroid withdrawal by the end of week 1 achieves similar 1-year renal function to a standard-steroids regimen, and may be more desirable than complete steroid avoidance.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".