RESULTS OF LIS2T, A MULTICENTER, RANDOMIZED STUDY COMPARING CYCLOSPORINE MICROEMULSION WITH C2 MONITORING AND TACROLIMUS WITH C0 MONITORING IN DE NOVO LIVER TRANSPLANTATION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This is the first multicenter, randomized, open-label study to compare the efficacy and safety of cyclosporine A microemulsion (CsA-ME) (Neoral, Novartis, Basel, Switzerland ) with C2 monitoring versus tacrolimus in de novo liver transplant recipients. Patients were stratified according to hepatitis C virus status and randomized to receive CsA-ME (n= 250) or tacrolimus (n= 245) with steroids, with or without azathioprine. The primary endpoint was the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (BPAR) at 3 months. Secondary endpoints included death or graft loss and safety evaluations at 6 months. The incidence of BPAR at 3 months was 26% in the CsA-ME group and 24% in the tacrolimus group (not significant). At 6 months, 89% of patients receiving CsA-ME and 88% of patients receiving tacrolimus were alive with a functioning graft. Among the hepatitis C virus-positive patients, there was no difference in BPAR, but death or graft loss was more frequent in those receiving tacrolimus (15% vs. 6%, P <0.05). Diabetes mellitus (14% vs. 7%, P <0.02) and diarrhea (29% vs. 14%, P <0.001) were significantly more often reported in patients receiving tacrolimus. The incidence of hypertension was similar in both groups. At 6 months, the median total cholesterol was 4.7 mmol/L (2.9-7.4 mmol/L) in the CsA-ME arm versus 4.3 mmol/L (2.5-6.4 mmol/L) in the tacrolimus arm; the median serum creatinine was 106 micromol/L (52-238 micromol/L) in the CsA-ME arm versus 103 micromol/L (44-477 micromol/L) in the tacrolimus arm. Efficacy is equivalent with CsA-ME using C2 monitoring or tacrolimus in liver transplant recipients. The incidence of adverse events is comparable except for a significantly higher incidence of diabetes mellitus and diarrhea in the tacrolimus group. Both agents are effective primary immunosuppressants in liver transplant recipients.
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 | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".