MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2972598562 · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2019-030092

Evaluating the endometabolic and bone health effects of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors in Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia: a systematic review protocol

2019· review· en· W2972598562 on OpenAlexaff
Janatani Balakumaran, Tanisha Birk, Breanne Golemiec, Wryan Helmeczi, Jeyanth Inkaran, Yun-ya Kao, Jennifer Leigh, Sarah Saliba, Rishi Sharma, Laura Spatafora, Kristin Wright, William C. Yao, Christopher Hillis, Laura Banfield, Lehana Thabane, Uma H. Athale, M. Constantine Samaan

Bibliographic record

VenueBMJ Open · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsMcMaster Children's HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonImpactJuravinski Cancer CentreMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChronic myeloid leukaemiaTyrosine kinaseProtocol (science)Tyrosine-kinase inhibitorCancer researchInternal medicinePathologyAlternative medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic Myeloid Leukaemia (CML) constitutes 15% of new adult leukaemia cases as well as 2%-3% of leukaemia in children under 15% and 9% of leukaemias in adolescents 15-19 years of age annually. The introduction of Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors (TKI) therapy has dramatically improved survival in these patients, yet the off-target effects of this treatment may have long-term health impacts on CML survivors. The risk of adverse health outcomes is especially important in children, where TKI exposure may occur during critical windows of growth and puberty, and patients require treatment for prolonged periods of time. The aim of this systematic review protocol is to report on the methods used to conduct a systematic review to investigate the endometabolic and bone health effects of TKI therapy in CML. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Searches will be conducted in the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE and MEDLINE from inception on August 1st, 2019. Searches may be updated while performing the systematic review to ensure new evidence is included if applicable. Grey literature search will include ClinicalTrials.gov and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses A&I. We will perform a meta-analysis if there are at least two studies reporting similar populations, interventions, methods and tracking the same outcome measures. The studies should also have similar age and sex distributions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a systematic review protocol, it does not include patient data; therefore, Research Ethics Board approval is not indicated. The systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at international conferences. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018091175.

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)0.062
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.085
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Protocol · Consensus signal: Protocol
Teacher disagreement score0.062
Threshold uncertainty score0.326

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0620.085
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.016
Bibliometrics0.0130.012
Science and technology studies0.0040.006
Scholarly communication0.0090.010
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0090.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0620.007

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 head0.139
GPT teacher head0.509
Teacher spread0.370 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreProtocol

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

Citations6
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMJ OpenSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207