MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011991703 · doi:10.4137/cmed.s22469

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Therapy Associated Hypophysitis

2015· review· en· W2011991703 on OpenAlexaff
Moeber Mahzari, Dora Liu, Amel Arnaout, Heather Lochnan

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Insights Endocrinology and Diabetes · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIpilimumabHypophysitisMedicineHypopituitarismAdverse effectImmunologyImmune systemClinical trialInternal medicineOncologyImmunotherapyPituitary glandHormone

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Ipilimumab is a monoclonal antibody directed against CTLA4 T-lymphocyte antigen used as cancer therapy. Immune-related adverse events are common side effects and may include hypophysitis-related hypopituitarism. The clinical features of six patients with ipilimumab-induced hypophysitis (IH) are described. The clinical features of IH reported in clinical trials, including the incidence of IH by gender and the likelihood of adrenal axis recovery, are summarized. Following the development of IH, most patients remain on glucocorticoid replacement despite efforts to withdraw therapy. Analysis of gender information in published clinical trials suggests that men are more prone to developing IH than women, and few patients fully recover the pituitary-adrenal axis function. Ipilimumab and other drugs within its class are likely to be used to treat many forms of cancer. Endocrinologists should anticipate a significant increase in the incidence of autoimmune hypophysitis. Strategies for early detection of IH and long-term management should be considered.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.114
GPT teacher head0.399
Teacher spread0.286 · 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

Citations56
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Insights Endocrinology and DiabetesSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207