MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051653561 · doi:10.1097/tp.0b013e3181636061

Pericardial Effusion Coincident With Sirolimus Therapy: A Review of Wyeth's Safety Database

2008· review· en· W2051653561 on OpenAlexaff
George H. Steele, Anthony Adamkovic, Laura A. Demopoulos, Linda C. Rothrock, Maureen Caulfield, Michael D. Blum, Charles Schubert, Dany D. Hembekides, Ajay B. Singh

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplantation · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsWomen's Health Research Institute
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSirolimusPericardial effusionAzathioprineSurgeryTransplantationEffusionInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Sirolimus is an immunosuppressive agent approved for prophylaxis of acute rejection in renal transplant patients aged 13 years or older. A retrospective review of pericardial effusion coincident with sirolimus therapy was conducted from key clinical trials and spontaneous reporting sources. A significantly higher rate of pericardial effusion occurred with sirolimus versus azathioprine treatment in a cardiac transplantation trial (28.6% versus 9.3%, respectively). Cases of pericardial effusion were also observed in the sirolimus treatment arms of three de novo renal transplant studies (rates 0.5 to 1.9%). Although most of the pericardial effusions occurred in cardiac transplantation, sirolimus is not approved for this use. As of January 31, 2007, the Wyeth safety database (which includes clinical trial data and spontaneous reports) contained reports of pericardial effusion in 56 sirolimus-treated patients, 31 of whom required pericardial drainage. These data suggest that pericardial effusion should be considered in the differential diagnosis of a clinical deterioration in posttransplant patients treated with sirolimus. The adverse reaction of pericardial effusion has been added to product labeling.

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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.550
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.354
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations15
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207