Major arterial events in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia treated with tyrosine kinase inhibitors: a meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is growing evidence that tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) may be associated with an increased risk of arterial events. We performed a meta-analysis to estimate the incidence of arterial events in patients with CML treated with TKIs. We identified 29 studies enrolling 15,706 patients. The incidence rates of composite of major arterial events were 0.8 per 100 patient-years for non-TKI treatments, 1.1 per 100 patient-years for dasatinib, 0.1 per 100 patient-years for imatinib, 0.4 per 100 patient-years for bosutinib, 2.8 per 100 patient-years for nilotinib and 10.6 per 100 patient-years for ponatinib. The relative risk (RR) for nilotinib compared with imatinib suggests a significantly increased risk of the composite of major arterial events with nilotinib treatment (RR 5.3; 95%CI 3.0-9.3, p < 0.001). This study demonstrates that, patients who received nilotinib or ponatinib had a greater number of major arterial events when compared to non-TKI-, imatinib-, dasatinib- and bosutinib-treated patients.
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 | 0.005 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.024 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".