Assessment of the Measurement Error in Cyclosporine Levels Drawn Between Peripheral and Central Sources
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Cyclosporine is often monitored by drug levels drawn through central venous catheters (CVCs), which may be falsely elevated due to reversible drug adsorption onto the catheter. Therefore, we assessed the correlation between cyclosporine levels drawn peripherally and through CVCs. METHODS: Bone marrow transplantation patients had a weekly collection of both peripheral and CVC draws from dual-lumen catheters simultaneously to assess cyclosporine levels after research ethics approval. Our primary outcome was the proportion of paired samples that were incongruent-defined as the mean of the CVC level being greater than 2 standard deviations from the peripheral level mean. RESULTS: After approaching 27 eligible patients, 20 patients (77.8%) provided samples. Of 53 paired samples, seven were incongruent (13.2%). Peripheral and CVC levels correlated (r = 0.91) and agreed well. CONCLUSION: Despite potential for preanalytical error due to adsorption, cyclosporine infusion and monitoring via CVCs produce results similar to monitoring via peripheral blood draws.
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 | 0.033 | 0.078 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".