A Numerical Scale Comparison of Renal Transplant Recipient Experience with and Opinions about Calcineurin Inhibitors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Many studies compare the relative benefits of cyclosporine and tacrolimus with respect to graft and patient outcomes, but comparative renal transplant recipient opinion on calcineurin inhibitor (CI) use has not been directly sought. METHODS: We administered a confidential clinic-distributed written questionnaire to adult single-organ recipients pertaining to CI use and related physical side effects experienced. Sixteen common immunosuppressive therapy-related side effects were rated on a 1-10 Likert numerical scale, with 1 meaning complete disagreement and 10 complete agreement with their own CI experience. Comparisons were made among recipients on cyclosporine, tacrolimus, and those with a dual drug experience. RESULTS: The questionnaire was filled by 316 patients. The efficacy of cyclosporine and tacrolimus was considered equivalent (p = 0.99), while the overall side effect profile reported was greater for cyclosporine (p = 0.001). The side effect profile for cyclosporine was greater in the dual group than the cyclosporine-only group (p = 0.01). Cyclosporine was perceived as more difficult to swallow (p = 0.001), nephrotoxic (p = 0.005), and to cause more hypertension (p = 0.04) and hyperlipidemia (p = 0.001), while tacrolimus was perceived to be more neurotoxic (p < 0.0001), but not causing more diabetes (p = 0.64). CONCLUSIONS: Renal transplant recipients experience fewer and less severe side effects with tacrolimus. Further contemporaneous study of CI preferences in this population is warranted. Transplant centers should consider patient opinion in tailoring their own immunosuppressive strategies and regimens.
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 | 0.003 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".