MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391873537 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwad061.292

A292 IMPACT OF SIROLIMUS PROTEINURIA FOLLOWING LIVER TRANSPLANTATION

2024· article· en· W4391873537 on OpenAlexaff
Rojin Kaviani, Martin Krüger, Mang Ma, Juan G. Abraldeṣ, Rahima A. Bhanji

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSirolimusProteinuriaLiver transplantationMedicineTransplantationUrologyInternal medicineKidney

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Sirolimus (Sr) is a potent immunosuppressant used in liver transplant recipients to prevent rejection in settings of calcineurin inhibitor toxicity and in transplanted hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) patients. Sr can cause proteinuria, which can lead to poor renal function and survival. The significance of proteinuria is poorly understood, with a lack of studies assessing its risk factors and their impact on clinical outcomes. Aims We evaluated the incidence of proteinuria and its impact on clinical outcomes among liver transplant (LT) recipients who were Sr users compared with non-sirolimus (nonSr) users. Methods We analyzed patients with their first LT between 2001 and 2020. Data were gathered from Organ Transplant Tracking records and chart reviews. Sr users received Sr for at least 6 consecutive months in the first year post-LT. We studied demographics, pre-LT comorbidities, and immunosuppression use. We evaluated the development of proteinuria, renal dysfunction, and new comorbidities including features of metabolic syndrome and cardiovascular disease. Data on post-LT infections, graft rejection, and patient survival were collected. Results We analyzed 359 Sr and 762 non-Sr users (73.5% vs. 65% male). The average ages of Sr and non-Sr users were 54.9±9 and 51.7±11.6 years, respectively (pampersand:003C0.001). Of Sr users, 40.4% had HCC (pampersand:003C0.001). Among non-Sr users, 95% were on tacrolimus and 67.8% were on mycophenolate. Higher frequency of pre-LT hypertension (HTN) was observed in Sr users (27.2% vs. 18.2%; pampersand:003C0.001). There were no differences in pre-LT chronic kidney disease (CKD), cardiovascular disease (CVD), dyslipidemia (DLD), diabetes mellitus (DM) prevalence, creatinine levels, or proteinuria. Sr users had a higher incidence of proteinuria (13.1% vs. 7.9%, p=0.006). Protein-creatinine ratios and albumin-creatinine ratios 12 months post-LT were not significantly different in Sr and non-Sr users ([40.1±105.6 vs. 57.5±169.9 mg/g, p=0.39], and [56.2±101.4 vs. 54.6±166.8 mg/g, p=0.268], respectively). Pre-LT creatinine (OR1.5; pampersand:003C 0.001) and DM (OR2.7; pampersand:003C 0.001) were associated with an increased risk of proteinuria. Sr users had higher (pampersand:003C0.001) incidence of post-LT CVD (24% vs. 14.8%), DM (20.4% vs. 12.6%), HTN (41.5% vs. 30.3%), and DLD (41.3% vs. 20.3%). There was no difference in post-LT CKD between Sr vs non-Sr (41% vs. 47%; p =0.119). Sr users had a lower frequency of post-LT infection (43.1% vs. 53%, p=0.007). Higher incidence of graft rejection was seen in Sr users (43.5% vs 27.8%, pampersand:003C0.001). There was no difference in median graft (15.2 ± 0.40 vs. 14.4±0.30 years; p = 0.681) or patient survival (12.5±0.44 vs. 12.5±0.33 years; p = 0.536). Conclusions Although Sr users were less likely to develop CKD post-LT, they had significantly higher rates of proteinuria, CVD, HTN, and DLD. However, no significant difference was observed in graft or patient survival rates. Funding Agencies None

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.228
Teacher spread0.223 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology→Same topicMetabolism and Genetic Disorders→French-language works237,207→