MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2168517490 · doi:10.1345/aph.1m511

Limited Sampling Strategies for Predicting Area Under the Concentration-Time Curve of Mycophenolic Acid in Islet Transplant Recipients

2009· article· en· W2168517490 on OpenAlexaff
Mai Al-Khatib, R. Jean Shapiro, Nilufar Partovi, Lillian Ting, Marc Levine, Mary H. H. Ensom

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Pharmacotherapy · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British ColumbiaVancouver Coastal HealthUniversity of British Columbia HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMycophenolic acidMedicinePharmacokineticsMycophenolateArea under the curveJackknife resamplingUrologyPopulationMorningTransplantationInternal medicinePharmacologyStatisticsMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Mycophenolate mofetil is widely used in islet transplant recipients and its active metabolite, mycophenolic acid (MPA), exhibits wide pharmacokinetic variability. However, to our knowledge, no limited sampling strategy (LSS) exists for monitoring MPA in this subpopulation. OBJECTIVE: To define optimal LSSs for MPA monitoring and to test their predictive performance in islet transplant recipients. METHODS: After written informed consent was obtained and upon administration of a steady-state morning mycophenolate mofetil dose, blood samples were collected at 0, 0.3, 0.6, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 hours from 16 stable islet transplant recipients. MPA concentrations were measured by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography method with ultraviolet detection and pharmacokinetic parameters analyzed by noncompartmental modeling. All 16 patients' profiles were used to develop the LSSs via multiple regression analysis. Potential LSSs were restricted to ones having R(2) 0.90 or greater and 3 or fewer time points within the first 4 hours postdose. Resulting equations were validated for their predictive performance using the jackknife method, with acceptable criteria for bias and precision preset to within +/-15%. In addition, 14 published LSSs (in the renal transplant population) were tested in our islet transplant patients. RESULTS: Five LSSs met preset criteria and had conventional sampling times: AUC = 1.783 + 1.248C1 + 0.888C2 + 8.027C4 (R2 = 0.98, bias = -3.09%, precision = 9.53%) AUC = 2.778 + 1.413C1 + 0.963C3 + 7.511C4 (R2 = 0.97, bias = -3.22%, precision = 11.02%) AUC = 1.448 + 1.239C1 + 0.271C1.5 + 9.108 C4 (R2 = 0.96, bias = -1.90%, precision = 11.46) AUC = 1.410 - 0.259C0 + 1.443C1 + 9.622C4 (R2 = 0.96, bias = -2.68%, precision = 11.53%) AUC = 1.547 + 1.417C1 + 9.448C4 (R2 = 0.96, bias = -2.46%, precision = 11.14%) where AUC = area under the concentration-time curve. None of the other published LSSs in the renal transplant population met the preset criteria for bias and precision. CONCLUSIONS: To our knowledge, these are the first precise and accurate LSSs for predicting MPA AUC developed specifically for islet transplant recipients. The LSS that we recommend is the one utilizing 2 concentrations: AUC = 1.547 + 1.417C1 + 9.448C4. This equation is convenient and clinically feasible. Other islet transplant centers may wish to validate our equation in their population or use our template as a guide to develop accurate and precise LSSs specific to their patient population.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.019
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.019
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.115
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations16
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of PharmacotherapySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207