MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

<i>MDR1</i> haplotypes derived from exons 21 and 26 do not affect the steady‐state pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in renal transplant patients

2004· article· en· W2081761498 on OpenAlexaff
Ingrid Mai, Elke S. Perloff, Steffen Bauer, Mark Goldammer, Andreas Johne, Guido Filler, Klemens Budde, Ivar Roots

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacrolimusHaplotypeCYP3A5Single-nucleotide polymorphismGenotypePharmacokineticsConfidence intervalExonPharmacogeneticsMedicinePharmacologySNPInternal medicineBiologyGastroenterologyTransplantationGeneticsGene

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

AIM: This retrospective study investigated the influence of MDR1 haplotypes derived from the polymorphisms 2677G > T (exon 21) and 3435C > T (exon 26) on the pharmacokinetics of the immunosuppressant drug tacrolimus in 73 renal transplant patients. METHODS: Based on both variants of SNPs 2677 and 3435, four different haplotypes and eight different genotypes were identified in the study sample. Tacrolimus trough concentrations (C(0)) were compared between different SNP variants and genotypes, as well as between carriers and noncarriers of each haplotype. Additionally, CYP3A5 genotype (6956G > A) was determined. RESULTS: No significant differences were observed between groups. Differences in mean tacrolimus C(0) values between carriers and noncarriers of each haplotype ranged from -0.04 microg/litre (95% confidence interval: -0.53 to 0.60) to -23 microg/litre (-1.07 to 1.53). No association was found between CYP3A5*1/*3 genotype and tacrolimus Co concentractions. CONCLUSION: MDR1 haplotypes derived from the SNPs 2677G > T (exon 21) and 3435C > T (exon 26) do not influence the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in renal transplant patients.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.158
Threshold uncertainty score0.505

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.372
Teacher spread0.333 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations77
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207