MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2304716045 · doi:10.1517/14740338.2015.1045875

Safety evaluation of olaparib for treating ovarian cancer

2015· review· en· W2304716045 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphanie Lheureux, Valerie Bowering, Katherine Karakasis, Amit M. Oza

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPARP inhibition in cancer therapy
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineOlaparibTolerabilityOncologyInternal medicineNauseaOvarian cancerCancerAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Olaparib (Lynparza®) is an oral, small molecule, poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has become the first 'personalized' therapy available for patients with BRCA mutation-positive ovarian cancer (OC). A capsule formulation of the drug has recently received approval for use in this population for platinum-sensitive recurrent disease for maintenance therapy following platinum-based chemotherapy in Europe and as third- or fourth-line platinum-sensitive therapy in the USA. AREAS COVERED: This article reviews the development of olaparib in OC with a focus on safety evaluation. Data are based on published literature and reports available from the olaparib development program database. EXPERT OPINION: Oral olaparib 400 mg twice daily has acceptable tolerability when administered as maintenance monochemotherapy in women with relapsed OC. The common toxicities - nausea/vomiting, fatigue and anemia - are mild or moderate in severity and appear consistent across subgroups (BRCA carriers/wild-type). Though the risk is low, long-term monitoring of patients is warranted to determine the potential risk for hematological complications such as anemia, myelodysplastic syndrome or acute myeloid leukemia.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.969
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.185
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.301 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicPARP inhibition in cancer therapyFrench-language works237,207