Interleukin‐2 receptor antagonists for pediatric liver transplant recipients: A systematic review and meta‐analysis of controlled studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IL-2RA are frequently used as induction therapy in liver transplant recipients to decrease the risk of AR while allowing the reduction of concomitant immunosuppression. The exact association with the use of IL-2RA, however, is uncertain. We performed a systematic literature search for relevant studies. Random effects models were used to assess the incidence of AR, steroid-resistant rejection, graft loss, patient death, and adverse drug reaction, with or without IL-2RA. Six studies (two randomized and four non-randomized) met the eligibility criteria. Acute rejection at six months or later favored the use of IL-2RA significantly (RR 0.38; 95% CI 0.22-0.66, p = 0.0005). Although not statistically significant, IL-2RA showed a substantial reduction of the risk of steroid-resistant rejection (RR 0.32; CI 0.19-1.03, p = 0.0594). Graft loss and patient death showed a reductive tendency through the use of IL-2RA. The use of IL-2RA is safe and is associated with a statistically significantly lower incidence of AR after transplantation and substantial reduction of steroid-resistant rejection, graft loss, and patient death.
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 | 0.006 | 0.017 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".