MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

FTY720 Versus Mycophenolate Mofetil in De Novo Renal Transplantation: Six-Month Results of a Double-Blind Study

2007· article· en· W2016537645 on OpenAlexaff
Hélio Tedesco‐Silva, Péter Szakály, Ahmed Shoker, Claudia Sommerer, Norio Yoshimura, Francesco Paolo Schena, Malika Cremer, Abdel Hmissi, Hartmut W. Mayer, Philippe Lang

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSphingolipid Metabolism and Signaling
Canadian institutionsRoyal University Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMycophenolateMycophenolic acidTolerabilityClinical endpointDiscontinuationAdverse effectPrednisoneTransplantationUrologyGastroenterologyInternal medicineSurgeryRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: FTY720 is a novel immunomodulator that was developed to produce optimal graft protection with improved safety and tolerability. Phase II studies have demonstrated the efficacy of FTY720 up to the doses of 2.5 mg with full-dose cyclosporine (FDC). METHODS: This multicenter, double-blind, Phase IIb, randomized study evaluated the safety and efficacy of 5 mg FTY720 (n=87; Group 1) vs. 2.5 mg FTY720 (n=90; Group 2) vs. mycophenolate mofetil (MMF; n=94; Group 3) in de novo renal transplant patients receiving FDC and prednisone. RESULTS: The primary efficacy endpoint was the occurrence of treated biopsy-proven acute rejection, graft loss, death, or premature study discontinuation (composite endpoint) within 6 months. The primary endpoint was superior in Group 1 (24%) and statistically noninferior in Group 2 compared to Group 3 (24.1% vs. 29.2% vs. 39.4%; P=0.025 and 0.0039, respectively). FTY720 plus FDC was generally well tolerated, with a similar incidence of adverse events across all groups. FTY720 was associated with higher incidence of bradycardia (Group 1: 26.4%, P=0.0002 and Group 2: 15.6%, P=0.046, vs. Group 3: 6.4%), respiratory disorders (Group 1: 40.2%, not significant [P=NS] and Group 2: 34.4%, P=NS vs. Group 3: 28.7%). One macular edema occurred in Group 2. Lower creatinine clearances were observed with FTY720 versus MMF (Group 1: 52.4 ml/min, P=NS and Group 2: 51.7 ml/min, P=0.039 vs. Group 3: 62.5 ml/min). CONCLUSIONS: Although FTY720 with FDC provided adequate protection from acute rejection the safety profile was less favorable for adverse events than current standard immunosuppression in de novo renal transplant patients.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Randomized triallow
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.277 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations64
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicSphingolipid Metabolism and SignalingFrench-language works237,207