Cutaneous Adverse Events during Vemurafenib Therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Vemurafenib, an oral agent that selectively targets the BRAF V600E mutation, has recently emerged as the mainstay of treatment in patients with BRAF-positive stage IV melanoma. A spectrum of cutaneous adverse events has been associated with vemurafenib, ranging from benign rashes to malignant side effects such as keratoacanthoma and squamous cell carcinoma. OBJECTIVE: In this article, we review clinical data regarding the frequency and severity of the common dermatologic side effects associated with vemurafenib; case series and noncontrolled studies evaluating the safety of vemurafenib therapy are used to further characterize these adverse events. CONCLUSION: Benign vemurafenib-induced side effects generally tend not to be severe or life threatening, with most patients managed by dose interruptions, dose reductions, or topical therapies. Squamous cell carcinomas and keratoacanthomas associated with vemurafenib therapy are easily treated by simple excision of the lesion without discontinuation of vemurafenib. Thus, awareness of potential adverse events coupled with routine dermatologic assessment and timely management will allow for optimal therapeutic benefit in patients receiving vemurafenib therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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.
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".