Current understanding of bleeding with ibrutinib use: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ibrutinib therapy was associated with an increased risk of bleeding in previous trials. In this systematic review and meta-analysis of published trials including patients treated with ibrutinib, the relative risk (95% confidence interval [CI]) of overall bleeding was significantly higher in ibrutinib recipients (2.72 [1.62-6.58]), but major bleeding did not show a significant difference (1.66 [0.96-2.85]). The incidences (95% CI) of major bleeding and any bleeding were 3.0 (2.3-3.7) and 20.8 (19.1-22.1) per 100 patient-years, respectively. This analysis is limited by reporting bias from variable ascertainment of bleeding and lack of allocation concealment in some studies and differing exposures between groups, leading to potential overestimation of event rates in the ibrutinib group.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it