MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3096281240 · doi:10.1111/bcp.14590

Population pharmacokinetics of mycophenolic acid in paediatric patients

2020· review· en· W3096281240 on OpenAlexaff
Yan Rong, Heajin Jun, Tony K. L. Kiang

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Clinical Pharmacology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePopulationMycophenolic acidPharmacokineticsContext (archaeology)NONMEMPharmacodynamicsTransplantationPharmacologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mycophenolic acid (MPA) is widely used in paediatric kidney transplant patients and sometimes prescribed for additional indications. Population pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic modelling has been frequently used to characterize the fixed, random and covariate effects of MPA in adult patients. However, MPA population pharmacokinetic data in the paediatric population have not been systematically summarized. The objective of this narrative review was to provide an up-to-date critique of currently available paediatric MPA population pharmacokinetic models, with emphases on modelling techniques, pharmacological findings and clinical relevance. PubMed and EMBASE were searched from inception of database to May 2020, where a total of 11 studies have been identified representing kidney transplant (n = 4), liver transplant (n = 1), haematopoietic stem cell transplant (n = 1), idiopathic nephrotic syndrome (n = 2), systemic lupus erythematosus (n = 2), and a combined population consisted of kidney, liver and haematopoietic stem cell transplant patients (n = 1). Critical analyses were provided in the context of MPA absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and bioavailability in this paediatric database. Comparisons to adult patients were also provided. With respect to clinical utility, Bayesian estimation models (n = 6) with acceptable accuracy and precision for MPA exposure determination have also been identified and systematically evaluated. Overall, our analyses have identified unique features of MPA clinical pharmacology in the paediatric population, while recognizing several gaps that still warrant further investigations. This review can be used by pharmacologists and clinicians for improving MPA pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling and patient care.

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)0.014
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.014
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.090
GPT teacher head0.469
Teacher spread0.379 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations27
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of Clinical PharmacologySame topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207