Increased Risk of Thrombotic Microangiopathy in Patients Receiving a Cyclosporin–Sirolimus Combination
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A single-center cohort study of kidney and kidney-pancreas recipients was conducted to evaluate the association between new immunosuppressive regimens and risk of thrombotic microangiopathy (TMA). From January 1st,1996 to December 31, 2002, 368 patients received a kidney or kidney-pancreas transplant at our center. Four immunosuppressive regimens were evaluated as potential risk factors of TMA: cyclosporin + mycophenolate mofetil (CsA + MMF), cyclosporin + sirolimus (CsA + SRL), tacrolimus + myophenolate mofetil (FK + MMF), and tacrolimus + sirolimus (FK + SRL). Thirteen patients developed biopsy-proven TMA in the absence of vascular rejection. The incidence of TMA was significantly different in the four immunosuppressive regimens studied (p < 0.001). The incidence of TMA was highest in the CsA + SRL group (20.7%). The relative risk of TMA was 16.1 [95% confidence interval (CI): 4.3-60.8] for patients in the CsA + SRL group as compared with those in the FK + MMF group. We also investigated in vitro the pathophysiological basis of this association. The CsA-SRL combination was found to be the only regimen that concomitantly displayed pro-necrotic and anti-angiogenic activities on arterial endothelial cells. We propose that this combination concurs to development of TMA through dual activities on endothelial cell death and repair.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".