MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047013037 · doi:10.1017/s0317167100012105

Monoclonal Antibodies and Progressive Multifocal Leukoencephalopathy

2011· review· en· W2047013037 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Daniel L. Keene, Carole Legare, Elaine Taylor, Jim Gallivan, Gloria Mah Cawthorn, Duc Vu

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences Neurologiques · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsHealth Canada
Fundersnot available
KeywordsProgressive multifocal leukoencephalopathyNatalizumabEfalizumabMedicineMonoclonal antibodyAdalimumabRituximabAdverse effectAdverse Event Reporting SystemMonoclonalPharmacovigilanceInfliximabInternal medicineImmunologyAntibodyMultiple sclerosisRheumatoid arthritis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Monoclonal antibodies have become an important treatment option for a number of serious conditions. Concerns have arisen about the potential association of these products with progressive multifocal leukoencephalopathy (PML). A list of monoclonal antibodies authorized for sale was derived from the Health Canada Drug Product Database. Case reports of PML after exposure to a monoclonal antibody authorized for use in Canada were retrieved by searching Canada Vigilance and WHO adverse event databases and through a Pub MED/Medline literature search. 182 adverse event case reports were retrieved (adalimumab -1 case, alemtuzumab-14, bevacizumab -3, cetuximab -1, efalizumab - 8, ibritumomab tiuxetan-5, infliximab-4, natalizumab-32, and rituximab-114). The Canadian Product Monographs for natalizumab and ritiximab contain box warnings for PML. A natalizumab registry has been established.

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)0.001
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 score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0050.006
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations64
Published2011
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Neurological Sciences / Journal Canadien des Sciences NeurologiquesSame topicPolyomavirus and related diseasesFrench-language works237,207