MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Treatment of Kaposi sarcoma in children with HIV-1 infection

2014· review· en· W2105540012 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Andrew Anglemyer, Anurag K. Agrawal, George W Rutherford

Bibliographic record

VenueCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicViral-associated cancers and disorders
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsMedicineCohortObservational studySarcomaData extractionCohort studyPediatricsMEDLINEInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Kaposi sarcoma (KS) remains the second most frequently diagnosed HIV-related malignancy (HRM) worldwide and most common HRM in sub-Saharan Africa where HIV is most prevalent and human herpesvirus 8 (HHV-8), the precipitating agent for the development of KS, is endemic. The majority of KS patients would likely benefit from systemic chemotherapy in addition to the initiation of antiretroviral therapy (ART). However, as paediatric staging and treatment criteria are not readily available, there are no uniform treatment criteria. OBJECTIVES: To describe the efficacy and effectiveness of current treatment options for HIV-associated KS in ART-treated paediatric populations. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard Cochrane methods to search electronic databases and conference proceedings with relevant search terms without limits to language. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, and case-control studies of HIV-infected infants and children <18 years old treated with ART and diagnosed with KS. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Abstracts of all studies identified by electronic or bibliographic scanning were examined independently by two authors. We initially identified 920 references and examined 15 in detail for study eligibility. Data were abstracted independently using a standardised abstraction form. MAIN RESULTS: After initially screening 920 titles, 15 full-text articles were closely examined by two authors. We identified four cohort studies that met our inclusion criteria for data extraction, coding, and potential meta-analysis.Using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and Cochrane risk of bias assessments, all observational studies had cohorts that were representative of average (treated and untreated) HIV-infected children with Kaposi sarcoma. For all outcomes of interest, no study adjusted for any other potential confounders. Two of four observational studies either explicitly described complete follow up of the study participants and/or described the characteristics of the participants lost to follow up.The use of ART together with a chemotherapeutic regimen versus ART alone appears to increase the likelihood of KS remission in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS, although data are sparse and not adequately adjusted for staging of disease and comorbidities. Additionally, though data are sparse, the use of ART together with a chemotherapeutic regimen versus chemotherapy alone in some analyses appears to increase the likelihood of KS remission and reduce the risk of death in HIV-infected children diagnosed with KS.In this analysis, we found that the quality of evidence was very low due to small sample sizes and a paucity of paediatric literature. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Data describing the efficacy of different treatment options for pediatric KS, to include chemotherapy and ART, are sparse. However, the use of ART together with a chemotherapy regimen may be superior to the use of ART alone or of chemotherapy alone.

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)0.005
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.028

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0050.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.003
Bibliometrics0.0030.003
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.053
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.303 · 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 designSystematic review
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

Citations23
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCochrane Database of Systematic ReviewsSame topicViral-associated cancers and disordersFrench-language works237,207