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
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".