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
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.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".