MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Limited sampling strategy for cyclosporine (Neoral<sup>®</sup>) area under the curve monitoring in pediatric kidney transplant recipients

2005· article· en· W2171964400 on OpenAlexafffund
Dawn K. Strong, Amanda Lai, D. R. N. Primmett, Colin T. White, David S. Lirenman, James E. Carter, R. Morrison Hurley, Mumtaz Virji, Mary H. H. Ensom

Bibliographic record

VenuePediatric Transplantation · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouver Native Health SocietyChildren's & Women's Health Centre of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchNovartis Pharmaceuticals Canada
KeywordsMedicineTrough levelArea under the curveUrologyTherapeutic drug monitoringPharmacokineticsTransplantationBlood samplingCiclosporinKidney transplantationTrough ConcentrationRenal transplantMorningRenal functionInternal medicineTacrolimus

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cyclosporine (CSA; Neoral) is one of the most common immunosuppressants used in pediatric renal transplantation. Research in adult renal transplant recipients has shown that 2-h post-dose concentration (C2) monitoring and limited sampling strategies (LSSs) are better at predicting drug exposure and outcome than trough concentrations (C0). While C0 monitoring is the usual practice in pediatric renal transplant patients, area under the curve (AUC) monitoring has been shown to be superior in terms of predictive ability and outcomes. However, AUC monitoring is impractical and inconvenient in a clinic setting because it involves many blood samples. An LSS provides a reliable alternative. The purpose of this study was to prospectively define an LSS (AUC(0-12)) for CSA monitoring and to test its predictive performance. As well, an LSS (AUC(0-4)) for CSA was developed and its predictive performance tested. Blood samples for CSA concentrations were collected in 29 stable pediatric renal transplant patients prior to (t = 0) and at 0.5, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 h following a steady-state morning CSA dose. AUC was calculated by the trapezoidal method; LSSs for AUC(0-12) and AUC(0-4) were determined using multiple regression analysis in 14 patients; and the LSSs' predictive performance was tested in 15 additional patients. Both LSSs require two blood samples. For the LSS (AUC(0-12)), blood samples are required immediately before the dose and 2 h post-dose: AUC(0-12) = 12.45 C0 + 2.17 C2 + 723.16 (r2 = 0.909). For the LSS (AUC(0-4)), blood samples are required at one and 2 h post-dose, AUC(0-4) = 1.17 C1 + 1.85 C2 - 41.00 (r2 = 0.971). The LSSs demonstrated low bias and high precision for both AUC(0-12) and AUC(0-4). Our two-concentration LSSs are accurate and precise predictors that are more clinically useful for our patient population than other LSSs that have been developed for pediatric renal transplant patients. Our study template provides a guide for other centers to develop accurate and precise LSSs specific to their own 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 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 score0.027
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
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.056
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations9
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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