MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2147312247 · doi:10.1111/petr.12369

Tacrolimus therapeutic drug monitoring and pediatric renal transplant graft outcomes

2014· article· en· W2147312247 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nicholas Larkins, Douglas G. Matsell

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTacrolimusMedicineTransplantationPrednisoneCohortTherapeutic drug monitoringCalcineurinRenal transplantRetrospective cohort studyRenal functionUrologyKidney transplantationInternal medicinePharmacokinetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Predose monitoring of tacrolimus levels is standard practice in the care of pediatric renal transplant patients. This is despite a paucity of data investigating the ideal target range in children, and controversy as to whether tacrolimus levels correlate with renal transplant outcomes. We performed a retrospective cohort analysis of 48 renal transplant patients at a single Canadian pediatric transplant center following the initiation of a tacrolimus-mycophenolate-prednisone-based IS protocol. We analyzed the relationship of graft function, as defined by GFR up to five yr post-transplant, to the preceding mean tacrolimus level. There was no significant correlation between absolute GFR and mean tacrolimus levels (r = 0.206, p = 0.38). However, a higher mean tacrolimus level, particularly ≥10 ng/mL in the first three months after transplantation, was associated with a slower rate of decline in GFR with time (r = 0.608, p = 0.004) and with a less likelihood of developing CKD five yr after transplant. We suggest that the optimal target range for tacrolimus levels may be at the upper end of what is currently practiced and that further research to validate these findings would be useful.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.272
Teacher spread0.258 · 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.

Study designObservational
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

Citations20
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePediatric TransplantationSame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207