MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2083649927 · doi:10.1007/s00147-003-0678-z

Abbreviated mycophenolic acid AUC from C0, C1, C2, and C4 is preferable in children after renal transplantation on mycophenolate mofetil and tacrolimus therapy

2004· article· en· W2083649927 on OpenAlexaff
Guido Filler

Bibliographic record

VenueTransplant International · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of OttawaChildren's Hospital of Eastern Ontario
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycophenolic acidMedicineTacrolimusMycophenolateUrologyArea under the curvePharmacokineticsConfidence intervalTrough levelTrough ConcentrationTherapeutic drug monitoringTransplantationImmunosuppressionCalcineurinGastroenterologyInternal medicinePharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In order to allow a similar algorithm to be used for both adults and children on tacrolimus-based and mycophenolate mofetil [MMF, a pro-drug for mycophenolic acid (MPA)]-based immunosuppression, a limited sampling technique from the trough level (C0) and the levels 30 min (C0.5) and 2 h (C2) after intake was to be developed from MPA area under the time-concentration curves (AUC). We retrospectively analyzed 49 full ten-point pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles from 29 pediatric patients on MMF and tacrolimus. We used stepwise multiple regression analysis to calculate limited sampling approaches. Agreement with the AUC was tested by means of Bland and Altman analysis. The correlation between AUC and pre-dose trough concentration was r(2)=0.5188 ( P<0.0001) and between AUC and post-dose trough concentration r(2)=0.6924 ( P<0.0001). The next best correlations were with 2 h (C2, r(2)=0.6711, P<0.0001), 4 h (C4, r(2)=0.6411, P<0.0001), 1.5 h (C1.5, r(2)=0.6344, P<0.0001), and 6 h (C6, r(2)=0.6219, P<0.0001). Three-point estimates at C0, C0.5, and C2 resulted in an acceptable correlation between predicted AUC and AUC from the full profile when we used the formula AUC = 10.01391+3.94791xC0+3.24253xC0.5+1.0108xC2, Pearson's r=0.8996, 95% confidence interval 0.8277-0.9424. However, even better results could be obtained when we used AUC = 8.217+3.163xC0+0.994xC1+1.334xC2+4.183xC4, Pearson's r=0.9456, 95% confidence interval 0.9051-0.9691. Bland and Altman analysis revealed good agreement between AUC predicted from C0, C0.5, and C2 and AUC from the full profile, but was inferior to the four-point approach. Also, the previously reported formula derived for adults was not usable in these patients. A special formula must be used for children. The AUC of MPA can be predicted by limited sampling including C0, C0.5, and C2, while an approach using C0, C1, C2, and C4 is preferable.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.243 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations72
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTransplant InternationalSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207