MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2143694203 · doi:10.1517/14740338.6.4.445

Safety considerations with mycophenolate sodium

2007· review· en· W2143694203 on OpenAlexaff
Guido Filler, Ilan Buffo

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2007
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's Hospital of Western OntarioWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMycophenolic acidMycophenolateBioequivalencePharmacokineticsCiclosporinDosingPharmacologyProdrugTransplantationConcomitantInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Following 10 years of clinical use of mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), a prodrug of mycophenolic acid, the FDA has approved enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium (EC-MPS). EC-MPS was developed to reduce the upper-gastrointestinal (GI) effects of MMF. Unlike oral MMF, where absorption starts in the stomach, EC-MPS releases MPA in the small intestine. Along with the pharmacology and pharmacokinetics, three randomized, controlled clinical trials in solid-organ transplantation, comparing MMF and EC-MPS, are reviewed. Disappointingly, EC-MPS was similar to MMF in efficacy and safety and did not significantly improve the GI side effects. Moreover, bioequivalence dosing has only been established with concomitant ciclosporin. The pharmacokinetic characteristics must be studied in greater detail. EC-MPS is a safe and effective immunosuppressive agent approved for use in the prevention of acute rejection after renal transplantation. However, the anticipated improvement of GI side effects has not been forthcoming.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.314 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207