MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2883651613 · doi:10.1188/18.cjon.e103-e114

Brentuximab Vedotin: A Nursing Perspective on Best Practices and Management of Associated Adverse Events

2018· review· en· W2883651613 on OpenAlexaff
Kathleen Clifford, Amanda Copeland, Gregory Knutzen, Ellen Samuelson, Laurie E. Grove, Karen Schiavo

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical journal of oncology nursing · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHER2/EGFR in Cancer Research
Canadian institutionsSeagen (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineBrentuximab vedotinAdverse effectClinical trialNeutropeniaOncologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicineLymphomaHodgkin lymphomaChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Brentuximab vedotin (BV) is an antibody-drug conjugate that targets CD30-expressing cells. OBJECTIVES: This article assesses the occurrence and management of the most frequent and clinically relevant BV-associated adverse events (AEs), with a focus on Hodgkin lymphoma and systemic anaplastic large cell lymphoma trials, and shares practical tips that may help decrease occurrence and severity. METHODS: Peer-reviewed literature was surveyed to collect safety data from sponsored clinical trials of BV and to compile associated management guidelines. FINDINGS: Peripheral neuropathy was the most common BV-associated AE across clinical trials. Other clinically relevant AEs included neutropenia, infection, and infusion-related reactions. Awareness of and preparedness for these common BV-associated AEs and other less common but significant AEs will help nurse clinicians and patients maximize the clinical benefit for patients receiving BV.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.031

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.003
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0030.004
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.452
GPT teacher head0.662
Teacher spread0.209 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical journal of oncology nursingSame topicHER2/EGFR in Cancer ResearchFrench-language works237,207