MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2804030960 · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2018-anzan.39

040 An analysis of malignancy risk in the clinical development programme of cladribine tablets in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis

2018· article· en· W2804030960 on OpenAlexaff
Andrew Galazka, Axel Nolting, Stuart D. Cook, Thomas Leist, Gıancarlo Comı, Xavier Montalbán, Christine Hicking, John King, Fernando Dangond

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPolyomavirus and related diseases
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCladribineIncidence (geometry)PopulationMalignancyInternal medicinePlaceboClinical trialPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction An independent meta-analysis; Pakpoor et al. Neurol Neuroimmunol Neuroinflamm 2015;2:e158) in Phase III trials (with a 2 year duration) of disease modifying drugs (DMDs) in patients with relapsing multiple sclerosis found no increased rate of malignancy with cladribine tablets (CT) versus other DMD treatments. Data from additional trials involving CT 3.5 mg/kg (CT3.5) and a safety registry (up to 8 years’ follow-up) allow further insights into malignancy risk. Objective is to assess malignancy risk with CT3.5 monotherapy and placebo (PBO) in data from 3 Phase III trials and a registry, and compare the incidence rate with a global database. Methods The CT 3.5 population comprised 923 patients (3433 patient-years’ [PY] total exposure time) and the PBO group comprised 641 patients (2026 PY). Individual case reports of malignancies were reviewed by independent, blinded adjudication committee. Standardised incidence ratios (SIR) were calculated using the GLOBOCAN reference population (excluding non-melanoma skin cancers [NMSCs]) and a Danish reference population for NMSC rates. Results The incidence per 100 PY of confirmed malignancy was CT3.5 0.293 (95%CI 0.158–0.544) and PBO 0.148 (95%CI 0.048–0.460); the risk difference 95% CI included 0 (−0.166–0.414). The CT 3.5 malignancy SIR was almost identical (0.97, 95% CI 0.44–1.85) to the GLOBOCAN matched reference population. The PBO group SIR was numerically lower (0.48, 95% CI 0.14–1.53). There were no cases of haematological, lymphoproliferative or virus-induced cancers. There was no clustering of specific tumour types, and the incidence of skin cancer was not increased after treatment with CT3.5 versus PBO. The incidence of malignancies with CT3.5 was constant and did not increase over time. Conclusion Analysis of malignancy rates in a cohort that includes patients with up to 8 years’ follow-up confirms the Conclusion of the earlier meta-analysis; the incidence of malignancies with CT3.5 is similar to a matched reference population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.250 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurology Neurosurgery & PsychiatrySame topicPolyomavirus and related diseasesFrench-language works237,207