MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985533827 · doi:10.3389/fgene.2015.00041

Use of pharmacogenomics in pediatric renal transplant recipients

2015· review· en· W1985533827 on OpenAlexafffund
Mara Medeiros-Domingo, Gilberto Castañeda-Hernández, Colin J.D. Ross, Bruce Carleton

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Genetics · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChild and Family Research InstituteBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
FundersUniversity of British ColumbiaProvincial Health Services AuthorityChild and Family Research InstituteGenome British ColumbiaCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchHospital Infantil de México Federico GómezGenome CanadaPfizer
KeywordsPharmacogenomicsMedicineCalcineurinCYP3A4Therapeutic drug monitoringPharmacologyDosingPharmacokineticsPharmacogeneticsCYP3A5DrugSLCO1B1Adverse effectPopulationTacrolimusTransplantationInternal medicineBiologyGenotypeGeneCytochrome P450GeneticsMetabolism

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Transplant recipients receive potent immunosuppressive drugs in order to prevent graft rejection. Therapeutic drug monitoring is the current approach to guide the dosing of calcineurin inhibitors, mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors (mTORi) and mofetil mycophenolate. Target concentrations used in pediatric patients are extrapolated from adult studies. Gene polymorphisms in metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters such as cytochromes CYP3A4 and CYP3A5, UDP-glucuronosyl transferase, and P-glycoprotein are known to influence the pharmacokinetics and dose requirements of immunosuppressants. The implications of pharmacogenomics in this patient population is discussed. Genetic information can help with achieving target concentrations in the early post-transplant period, avoiding adverse drug reactions and drug-drug interactions. Evidence about genetic studies and transplant outcomes is revised.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.955
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.110
GPT teacher head0.359
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations14
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in GeneticsSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207