Ganciclovir in Solid Organ Transplant Recipients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The authors use a previously published decision-making algorithm to address the role of clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring of ganciclovir, the drug of choice for prophylaxis and treatment of cytomegalovirus (CMV) in solid organ transplant recipients. Ganciclovir pharmacokinetics have been studied in solid organ transplant recipients with a wide range of peak and trough concentrations reported. Numerous assays are available to measure plasma concentrations of ganciclovir, but no clear correlation has been established between peak or trough concentrations and either efficacy or toxicity of the drug. For patients receiving treatment, the pharmacological response of ganciclovir is assessed initially by clinical response. Monitoring prophylactic therapy in asymptomatic patients poses a greater challenge. Although monitoring of antigenemia or polymerase chain reaction (PCR) deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) is not yet part of routine clinical practice, studies have shown a role for these techniques in monitoring response to antiviral therapy. Studies of subpopulations of renal failure patients show a prolonged ganciclovir half-life that requires dosage adjustments. However, ganciclovir clearance is closely correlated with creatinine clearance, which is an appropriate approach to adjusting dosages. Studies in pediatric patients also demonstrate a close correlation between dose per kilogram and AUC, suggesting that monitoring of ganciclovir levels may not be necessary. Based on the evidence presented in this review, routine clinical pharmacokinetic monitoring of ganciclovir does not appear to be warranted in solid organ 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".