Pharmacoeconomic Comparison of Cyclosporine Oral Solution and Capsules after Kidney Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We studied 20 kidney transplant recipients who had received Sandimmune cyclosporine A (CSA) capsules for an average of 7.9 months at a mean dose of 312 mg/day. They were switched to CSA liquid in the same dosage for an average of 15.5 months. There was no significant difference between the means for the monthly values of either serum creatinine or whole blood CSA when the periods on capsules and liquid were compared. Fourteen bottles from 4 batches with volume stated as 50 ml CSA actually contained an average of 53.7 ml. Comparison of the amount of capsules and liquid CSA prescribed and the amount dispensed by the pharmacy showed that the amount neglected (prescribed > dispensed) was similar for patients on liquid and capsules. Wastage (prescribed < dispensed) was about 5% greater when on liquid, and as our cost for liquid was 18% less than for capsules, we saved about 13% by use of the liquid.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".