MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1982956117 · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3182279133

Impact of De Novo Everolimus-Based Immunosuppression on Incisional Complications in Heart Transplantation

2011· article· en· W1982956117 on OpenAlexaff
Andreas Zuckermann, José M. Arizón, Gaohong Dong, Howard J. Eisen, Jon Kobashigawa, H. Lehmkuhl, Heather J. Ross, Carlo Pelligrini, Shoei‐Shen Wang, Markus J. Barten

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicTransplantation: Methods and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEverolimusMedicineAzathioprineImmunosuppressionSurgeryHeart transplantationIncidence (geometry)TransplantationSirolimusInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitor sirolimus has been associated with an increased incidence of wound-healing complications after de novo heart transplantation. To evaluate the possibility of a similar association for everolimus, we performed a risk-factor analysis to compare the incidence of incision-related wound complications for everolimus with that of other adjunctive drugs. METHODS: Safety data from 1009 heart transplant recipients (n=214, receiving azathioprine; n=84, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF); n=711, everolimus) were reviewed in a post hoc analysis from three randomized, multicenter studies-B253 (n=634), A2403 (n=199), and A2411 (n=176)-in which de novo patients received fixed-dose or concentration-controlled everolimus (target trough, 3-8 ng/mL), azathioprine, or MMF with standard- or reduced-exposure cyclosporine A. Incisional complications were analyzed for incidence, type, and severity up to day 90 posttransplant. RESULTS: Incisional-complication events occurred in 25 (11.7%) azathioprine, six (7.2%) MMF, and 87 (12.3%) everolimus patients. Serious incisional complications were more frequent with everolimus (6.9%) compared with azathioprine (4.2%; P=0.197) or MMF (1.2%; P=0.051). In a univariate analysis, patient sex, body mass index (BMI), and diabetes were associated with incisional complications. Only BMI was significantly associated with incisional complications in the subsequent multivariate analysis, with the odds of an incisional-complication event increasing by 12.9% for every 1 kg/m increase in BMI (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The incidence of incisional complications with everolimus was generally low, although numerically higher compared with MMF. Our analyses provided no strong evidence that everolimus is an independent risk factor for incisional complications. After de novo heart transplantation, patients with a high BMI are at higher risk of incision-related wound complications.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.066
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.316 · 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

Citations20
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicTransplantation: Methods and OutcomesFrench-language works237,207