PROLONGED CD25 SATURATION IN HEART TRANSPLANT PATIENTS RECEIVING TWO-DOSE DACLIZUMAB-INDUCTION
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A200 CD25 saturation has been studied in renal transplant patients receiving daclizumab-induction. CD25 remains saturated up to 120 days after five doses of 1 mg/kg every 2 weeks. New protocols using one dose (2 mg/kg) or two doses (2 mg/kg followed by 1 mg/kg on post-operative day 14) of daclizumab result in a CD25 saturation (% expression) <2% up to 42 days and 70 days, respectively. CD25 saturation has not been studied in heart transplant patients receiving daclizumab-induction. Aim: To determine the CD25 saturation in heart transplant patients receiving two-dose daclizumab-induction. Methods: This is a prospective pilot study in 5 heart transplant patients (3 women and 2 men, 51±9 yr) who received two-dose daclizumab-induction (2 mg/kg on the day of surgery and 1 mg/kg on post-operative day 14). Baseline immunosuppression included corticosteroids, mycophenolate mofetil and a calcineurin inhibitor (cyclosporine in 3 patients and tacrolimus in 2 patients). CD25 saturation (% expression) was measured on peripheral blood CD4 T-cells. CD25 saturation was measured pre-transplant and on post-operative day 14, 28, 42, 56, 70 and 84. Results: The CD25 saturation (% expression) pre-transplant and on post-operative day 14, 28, 42, 56, 70 and 84 was: 23±14%, 1±2%, 2±3%, 7±9%, 1±1%, 3±4% and 3±2%. The incidence of acute rejection (ISHLT grade ≥3A) during the first 3 months post-transplant was 20%. Conclusion: Our results suggest that a regimen of two-dose daclizumab-induction results in an efficient CD25 saturation during the first 3 months post-heart transplantation with an optimal rejection prophylaxis.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".