MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469735602 · doi:10.1080/14740338.2016.1207760

A safety evaluation of omacetaxine mepesuccinate for the treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia

2016· review· en· W2469735602 on OpenAlexaff
Moussab Damlaj, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Sarit Assouline

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Drug Safety · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsJewish General HospitalPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHomoharringtonineMyeloid leukemiaAdverse effectPharmacologyTyrosine-kinase inhibitorOncologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Therapy of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) has been completely transformed by the development of tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs). However, a subset of patients will fail TKI therapy due to resistance or intolerance. Omacetaxine mepesuccinate (OM), a protein translation inhibitor, is currently the only approved therapy that does not directly target the kinase domain. It has activity for CML patients irrespective of the phase or underlying kinase domain mutation status. AREAS COVERED: We searched the MEDLINE database for articles published in English on homoharringtonine or omacetaxine from 1970 to present. This article reviews the pharmacokinetics of OM and its clinical evolution for the treatment of CML pre- and post TKI development. Toxicity profile, drug administration and future directions are also discussed. EXPERT OPINION: OM represents a unique addition to the CML therapeutic armamentarium with its distinct mechanism of action and activity. The adverse event profile is manageable and with subcutaneous administration at the approved dose, cardiac toxicity is no longer a concern. The recent approval of home administration will facilitate access to this therapy and increase patient compliance. We conclude with specific scenarios where OM use should be considered in CP and AP-CML patients in the era of TKI 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 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)0.002
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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.990
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.323 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations16
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Drug SafetySame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207