Effect of tacrolimus formulation on neurocognition in older kidney transplant recipients: A randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Background Tacrolimus is known to cause neurotoxicities that may be more severe in older individuals. We aimed to compare the neurocognitive side effects of immediate release (IR) and LCP tacrolimus in older kidney transplant recipients in the early post-transplant period. Methods In this single center, open-label, randomized and controlled trial of 64 kidney transplant recipients aged 60 or above, participants were randomized to LCP tacrolimus or IR tacrolimus between 4- and 8-weeks post-transplantation and followed for 6-weeks. The primary outcome of neurocognitive performance at 6-weeks compared with baseline was assessed by the Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) and Digit Symbol Substitution Test (DSST). Secondary outcomes included health-related quality of life as measured by the Quality of Life in Essential Tremor Questionnaire (QUEST) and Organ Transplant Symptom and Wellbeing Instrument (OTSWI). Results 32 patients were randomized to IR tacrolimus and 31 to LCP tacrolimus. In the IR tacrolimus arm, the MOCA score increased by 1.2 points (SD 2.1) and the DSST score increased by 1.0 points (SD 7.8). In the LCP tacrolimus arm, the MOCA score increased by 0.2 points (SD 2.9) and the DSST score increased by 1.3 points (SD 7.5). No statistically significant difference was detected between arms in MOCA, DSST, QUEST or OTSWI scores. There was a trend toward improvement in tremor severity in the LCP tacrolimus arm. Conclusions No improvement was found in MoCA or DSST performance in patients switched to LCP tacrolimus as compared to IR tacrolimus after 6 weeks of exposure in the early post-transplant period.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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".