Sirolimus pharmacokinetics in pediatric renal transplant recipients receiving calcineurin inhibitor co‐therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We have previously reported sirolimus (SRL) pharmacokinetics (PK) in pediatric renal transplant recipients on a calcineurin inhibitor (CNI)-free protocol. We now report pediatric SRL PK in pediatric renal transplant patients receiving SRL + CNI. SRL was dosed to achieve target trough levels between 10 and 20 ng/mL. We performed 49 SRL PK profiles in pediatric renal transplant recipients receiving SRL in combination with either cyclosporine (CsA; 25 profiles), or tacrolimus (TCL; 24 profiles). Ten of the SRL + TCL profiles were obtained from children receiving SRL on a b.i.d. dosing regimen. All other SRL profiles were q.d. regimens. We calculated, the maximum concentration (C(max)), AUC, apparent clearance (aCL; dose/AUC) for dose in mg/m(2), and mean residence time (MRT). SRL levels were measured at 6 and 7 time points for b.i.d. and q.d. dosing, respectively. Regression analysis of SRL trough values vs. AUC showed good correlation in the SRL q.d. + CsA, SRL q.d. + TCL, and SRL b.i.d. + TCL groups (r(2) = 0.95, 0.68, and 0.44, respectively). SRL aCL corrected for body surface area was higher in children aged 0-5 yr receiving SRL with either CsA or TCL. SRL dosing schedule should be tailored to each patient. Higher SRL aCL may be present in younger children when administered with CNI.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".