MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2138869278 · doi:10.1177/0091270005279799

FTY720, a Novel Immunomodulator in de Novo Kidney Transplant Patients: Pharmacokinetics and Exposure‐Response Relationship

2005· article· en· W2138869278 on OpenAlexaff
Andrej Skerjanec, Hélio Tedesco‐Silva, Hans‐H. Neumayer, Edward Cole, Klemens Budde, Chyi‐Hung Hsu, Robert Schmouder

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicSphingolipid Metabolism and Signaling
Canadian institutionsToronto General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsVolume of distributionMedicinePopulationPharmacologyUrologyRenal functionDistribution (mathematics)Internal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The pharmacokinetics, safety, and preliminary efficacy of FTY720, a novel immunomodulator, were examined in de novo renal transplant patients. Both noncompartmental and population methods were used to estimate pharmacokinetic estimates in the patients. The steady-state plasma concentrations of FTY720 increased in accordance with maintenance dose level, indicating linearity in clearance and volume of distribution over the 0.25- to 2.5-mg dose range. The pharmacokinetics of FTY720 in de novo renal transplant patients were characterized by the long terminal phase half-life of approximately 200 hours across doses, high volume of distribution (>3000 L), and low clearance (10.8 L/h). The intersubject variation of clearance was 55%, and the intrasubject variation of FTY720 concentrations was 28%. The population analysis revealed significant positive relationships between baseline alkaline phosphatase and clearance, as well as between baseline body weight on apparent volume of distribution. There was no relationship between FTY720 concentrations within a given FTY720 dose cohort and the rate of allograft 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.758
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.030
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.328 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations37
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicSphingolipid Metabolism and SignalingFrench-language works237,207