MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2116782617 · doi:10.1093/ndt/gfu406

Getting the balance right: adverse events of therapy in anti-neutrophil cytoplasm antibody vasculitis

2015· review· en· W2116782617 on OpenAlexaff
Limy Wong, Lorraine Harper, Mark A. Little

Bibliographic record

VenueNephrology Dialysis Transplantation · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicVasculitis and related conditions
Canadian institutionsTrinity College
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineVasculitisAzathioprineAnti-neutrophil cytoplasmic antibodyAdverse effectCyclophosphamideMalignancyInternal medicineImmunologyIntensive care medicineDiseaseChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Antineutrophil cytoplasm antibody associated systemic vasculitides (AASV) have traditionally been managed with a combination of cyclophosphamide and glucocorticoids during the induction phase, followed by azathioprine in the maintenance phase. Whilst these therapies have markedly improved the prognosis in AASV, treatment related adverse events remain a major challenge and include complications such as infection, glucocorticoid related side effects, malignancy, cardiovascular disease, infertility and death. Newer biologic therapies have been shown to demonstrate equivalent efficacy as cyclophosphamide for remission but the hoped for reduction in adverse events has yet to be realised. More recent efforts have been focused on refining existing therapeutic regimens and strategies, tailoring individual treatment to disease severity, patient age and kidney function to derive maximum treatment efficacy while minimising treatment toxicity. In particular, current interventional trials are targeting a reduction in corticosteroid exposure in an effort to make induction and maintenance regimens safer.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
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 head0.020
GPT teacher head0.309
Teacher spread0.290 · 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

Citations17
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNephrology Dialysis TransplantationSame topicVasculitis and related conditionsFrench-language works237,207