Sirolimus for pediatric liver transplant recipients with post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disease and hepatoblastoma*
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sirolimus is a promising immune suppressive agent, with the potential to reduce calcineurin inhibitor associated nephrotoxicity, halt progression of chronic rejection and prevent tumor proliferation. The aim of this study was to review the experience using sirolimus in pediatric liver transplant recipients at a single center. Database and medical charts of all pediatric liver transplant recipients receiving sirolimus at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto were reviewed. Eight patients received sirolimus between October, 2000 and September, 2002. Indications for using sirolimus were post-transplant lymphoproliferative disease (PTLD) (n = 6) and hepatoblastoma (n = 2). Two patients with PTLD concurrently had renal impairment and chronic rejection. Sirolimus dosages ranged between 1.5 and 5 mg once daily. Median duration of follow-up was 17 months. Persistently elevated liver transaminase levels in the two children with chronic rejection decreased during sirolimus therapy. Recurrence of PTLD occurred in one patient. Two patients were diagnosed with acute cellular rejection after transition to maintenance sirolimus monotherapy. Resolution of adverse effects including mouth sores (n = 3), leg swelling (n = 2) and hyperlipidemia (n = 3) occurred either spontaneously or with dose reduction. Sirolimus was discontinued in four patients because of persisting bone marrow suppression, interstitial pneumonitis, life-threatening sepsis and refractory diarrhea. Children with PTLD or hepatoblastoma may benefit from immune suppression with sirolimus after liver transplantation. Further multi-center, prospective, randomized controlled trials will be instrumental to further the knowledge of long-term efficacy, safety and tolerability of sirolimus for selected children following liver transplantation.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".