SIROLIMUS IN ASSOCIATION WITH MYCOPHENOLATE MOFETIL INDUCTION FOR THE PREVENTION OF ACUTE GRAFT REJECTION IN RENAL ALLOGRAFT RECIPIENTS12
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: A previous trial in renal transplantation comparing sirolimus (rapamycin) to cyclosporine (CsA) in a triple-drug therapy regimen with azathioprine and corticosteroids found that the incidence of acute rejection was similar (approximately 40%) with a trend for better renal function with sirolimus. METHODS: In 14 European centers, first cadaveric renal allograft recipients were randomized to receive sirolimus (n = 40) or CsA (n = 38) in an open-label design. All patients received corticosteroids and mycophenolate mofetil 2 g/day. Sirolimus and CsA were concentration controlled; trough levels of mycophenolic acid and prednisolone were also measured. RESULTS: At 12 months, graft survival (92.5% sirolimus vs. 89.5% CsA), patient survival (97.5% sirolimus vs. 94.7% CsA), and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection (27.5% sirolimus vs. 18.4% CsA) were not statistically different. The use of antibodies to treat suspected rejection episodes was also similar (7.5% sirolimus vs. 5.3% CsA). More sirolimus patients received bolus steroid therapy (20 vs. 11, P = 0.068). From month 2 onward, the calculated glomerular filtration rate was consistently higher in sirolimus-treated patients. The adverse events reported more frequently with sirolimus were thrombocytopenia (45% vs. 8%) and diarrhea (38% vs. 11%). In the CsA group, increased creatinine (18% vs. 39%), hyperuricemia (3% vs. 18%), cytomegalovirus infection (5% vs. 21%), and tremor (5% vs. 21%) were observed significantly more often. DISCUSSION: Patient and graft survival and the incidence of biopsy-proven acute rejection at 12 months were comparable between sirolimus and CsA, whereas safety profiles were different. These data suggest that sirolimus may be used as primary therapy for the prevention of acute rejection.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".