Adverse events across generations of bone-modifying agents in patients with solid tumor cancers reported in Phase III randomized trials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS: The objective of this study is to compare adverse events experienced among different bone-modifying agents. METHODS: A literature search was conducted to identify Phase III bisphosphonate and bone-modifying agent trials reporting adverse effects. Thirty-seven adverse events of interest were identified for six different treatment options. Weighted linear regression modeling was performed on the adverse event proportions with treatment groups, normalized through applying natural log transformations. RESULTS: There were significant differences in adverse events of vomiting (p = 0.045) and osteonecrosis of the jaw (p = 0.017), and combined item events of nausea/vomiting (p = 0.048), hematological and lymphatic system toxicities (p = 0.020), and any respiratory system problem (p = 0.023) between bone-modifying agent and placebo trials. The significant toxicities were observed even after adjusting for the two confounding factors of age and primary cancer site. CONCLUSION: While adverse effects are consistently experienced more frequently in patients receiving bone-modifying agents when compared with placebos, we find that the majority of individual side effects are not significantly more frequent in patients receiving bone-modifying agents compared with placebo.
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 | 0.031 | 0.054 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".