A Comparative Study of Sirolimus Tablet Versus Oral Solution for Prophylaxis of Acute Renal Allograft Rejection
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This multicenter, open-label study compared the efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetic parameters of sirolimus (rapamycin) tablet and liquid formulations for prevention of efficacy failure. A total of 477 renal allograft recipients were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either tablet or solution formulations of sirolimus for 12 months, plus cyclosporine (CsA) and steroids. Pharmacokinetic parameters were analyzed based on trough concentrations and 24-hour pharmacokinetic profiles. There were no significant differences in efficacy failure at 3 or 12 months between tablet and solution groups. Graft survival, patient survival, rate of first biopsy-confirmed acute rejection, time to and severity of acute rejection, and laboratory parameters were not significantly different between groups. Mean steady-state sirolimus and CsA pharmacokinetic parameters on days 30 and 90 were not significantly different by formulation, except for longer sirolimus t(max) after tablet administration. Multivariate logistic regression analysis indicated that low sirolimus C(min,TN) and more human leukocyte antigen mismatches were predictors of acute rejection. The tablet and solution formulations of sirolimus demonstrated therapeutic equivalence.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".