Retrospective Study Looking at Cinacalcet in the Management of Hyperparathyroidism after Kidney Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. The primary objective of this study is to evaluate the use of cinacalcet in the management of hyperparathyroidism in kidney transplant recipients. The secondary objective is to identify baseline factors that predict cinacalcet use after transplantation. Methods. In this single-center retrospective study, we conducted a chart review of all patients having been transplanted from 2003 to 2012 and having received cinacalcet up to kidney transplantation and/or thereafter. Results. Twenty-seven patients were included with a mean follow-up of<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M1"><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">2.9</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">2.4</mml:mn></mml:math>years. Twenty-one were already taking cinacalcet at the time of transplantation. Cinacalcet was stopped within the first month in 12 of these patients of which 7 had to restart therapy. The main reason for restarting cinacalcet was hypercalcemia. Length of treatment was<mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" id="M2"><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">23</mml:mn><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn fontstyle="italic">26</mml:mn></mml:math>months. There were only 3 cases of mild hypocalcemia. There was no statistically significant association between baseline factors and cinacalcet status a year later. Conclusions. Discontinuing cinacalcet within the first month of kidney transplantation often leads to hypercalcemia. Cinacalcet appears to be an effective treatment of hypercalcemic hyperparathyroidism in kidney transplant recipients. Further studies are needed to evaluate safety and long-term benefits.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".