MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2120109964 · doi:10.1186/1745-6215-13-199

Rationale and design of the RIACT–study: a multi-center placebo controlled double blind study to test the efficacy of RItuximab in Acute Cellular tubulointerstitial rejection with B-cell infiltrates in renal Transplant patients: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

2012· article· en· W2120109964 on OpenAlexaff
Lena Schiffer, Mario Schiffer, Saskia Merkel, Anke Schwarz, Michael Mengel, Christopher Jürgens, Christoph Schroeder, Alexander A. Zoerner, Kerstin Püllmann, Verena Bröcker, Jan U. Becker, Maximilian Ernst Dämmrich, Jana Träder, Anika Großhennig, Frank Biertz, Hermann Haller, Armin Koch, Wilfried Gwinner

Bibliographic record

VenueTrials · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsThe Metabolomics Innovation CentreUniversity of Alberta
FundersUniversitätsklinikum KölnBundesministerium für Bildung und Forschung
KeywordsMedicineRituximabPlaceboCD20Internal medicineT cellB cellKidneyRenal functionSingle CenterClinical trialAcute kidney injuryImmunologyGastroenterologyUrologyImmune systemAntibodyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney allograft rejection is a major cause for declining graft function and has a negative impact on the long-term graft survival. The majority (90%) of acute rejections are T-cell mediated and, therefore, the anti-rejection therapy targets T-cell-mediated mechanisms of the rejection process. However, there is increasing evidence that intragraft B-cells are also important in the T-cell-mediated rejections. First, a significant proportion of patients with acute T-cell-mediated rejection have B-cells present in the infiltrates. Second, the outcome of these patients is inferior, which has been related to an inferior response to the conventional anti-rejection therapy. Third, treatment of these patients with an anti-CD20 antibody (rituximab) improves the allograft outcome as reported in single case observations and in one small study. Despite the promise of these observations, solid evidence is required before incorporating this treatment option into a general treatment recommendation. METHODS/DESIGN: The RIACT study is designed as a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel group multicenter Phase III study. The study examines whether rituximab, in addition to the standard treatment with steroid-boli, leads to an improved one-year kidney allograft function, compared to the standard treatment alone in patients with acute T-cell mediated tubulointerstitial rejection and significant B-cell infiltrates in their biopsies. A total of 180 patients will be recruited. DISCUSSION: It is important to clarify the relevance of anti-B cell targeting in T-cell mediated rejection and answer the question whether this novel concept should be incorporated in the conventional anti-rejection therapy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinical trials gov. number: NCT01117662.

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)0.043
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0430.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0100.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0040.008
Scholarly communication0.0050.004
Open science0.0050.002
Research integrity0.0090.010
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0280.010

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations1
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTrialsSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207