Randomized open‐label crossover assessment of Prograf vs Advagraf on immunosuppressant pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in simultaneous pancreas‐kidney patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: We assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic impact of converting stable simultaneous pancreas-kidney (SPK) recipients from standard tacrolimus (Prograf) to long-acting tacrolimus (Advagraf). METHODS: In a randomized prospective crossover study, stable SPK recipients on Prograf were assigned to Prograf with 1:1 conversion to Advagraf or vice versa. Demographics, tacrolimus, mycophenolic acid levels, and Cylex CD4 + ATP levels were taken at specified intervals in addition to standard blood work. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients, who were a minimum of 1 year post-transplant, were entered into the study. No difference in tacrolimus or mycophenolic acid levels was noted between patients who were first assigned to Prograf or Advagraf. Additionally, Cylex levels as well as serum creatinine, lipase, and blood sugar levels were unchanged. There were no episodes of rejection during the 6-month study. CONCLUSIONS: It is safe to convert between Prograf and Advagraf 1:1, without major impact on pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics in SPK recipients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".