MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2994726901 · doi:10.1016/j.cjca.2019.11.035

Acute Coronary Syndrome With Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Proof-of-Concept Case and Pharmacovigilance Analysis of a Life-Threatening Adverse Event

2019· article· en· W2994726901 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jennifer Cautela, Franck Rouby, Joe‐Elie Salem, Joachim Alexandre, Ugo Scemama, Charles Dolladille, Ariel Cohen, Franck Paganelli, Stéphane Éderhy, Franck Thuny

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Cardiology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
TopicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug Reactions
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersRocheNovartisMerck Sharp and DohmeBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicinePharmacovigilanceAdverse effectAcute coronary syndromeEvent (particle physics)Intensive care medicineInternal medicineMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolated cases of acute coronary syndrome (ACS) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have been described without the establishment of a formal cause-and-effect relationship between treatment and adverse event. We reported a case of ACS after the first administration of an ICI and with a fatal recurrence in another coronary area immediately after readministration. According to guidelines, causality was considered to be certain. Subsequently, we queried the French pharmacovigilance database and found 4 cases of ACS with coronary artery thrombosis. Causality was probable in those patients. These data suggest that ACS may be another life-threatening cardiac adverse event occurring with ICI exposure.

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)0.003
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: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.339
Teacher spread0.305 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations50
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of CardiologySame topicPharmacovigilance and Adverse Drug ReactionsFrench-language works237,207