Pericardial Effusion Coincident With Sirolimus Therapy: A Review of Wyeth's Safety Database
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.012 | 0.021 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".