Comparison between a liquid chromatography‐tandem mass spectrometry assay and a fluorescent polarization immunoassay to measure whole blood everolimus concentration in heart and renal transplantations
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Various methods [fluorescent polarization immunoassay (FPIA) and liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay] are used for therapeutic drug monitoring of everolimus. The aim of this study is to compare these assays in renal and heart transplantation. The correlation between results was investigated by linear regression in 44 patients (24 heart recipients and 20 renal recipients--137 samples). The comparison between assays was performed by a paired t-test. A highly significant correlation was found between FPIA and LC-MS/MS in heart and renal recipients [FPIA=0.851 x LC-MS/MS+1.773r(2)=0.8738 (P<0.001)]. Paired t-tests did not show a significant difference between everolimus whole blood concentrations in the populations of heart and renal recipients or heart recipients or renal recipients. FPIA and LC-MS/MS assays gave consistent overall results although some significant differences were observed in some samples between these methods indicating that FPIA assay has limitations that deserve further investigations.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 it