MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3028976177 · doi:10.1148/radiol.2020200073

Adverse Events to the Gadolinium-based Contrast Agent Gadoxetic Acid: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2020· review· en· W3028976177 on OpenAlex
Nicola Schieda, Christian B. van der Pol, Daniel Walker, Anne Tsampalieros, Pejman Maralani, Sungmin Woo, Matthew S. Davenport

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueRadiology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMaterials Science
TopicLanthanide and Transition Metal Complexes
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science CentreJuravinski HospitalHealth Sciences CentreChildren's Hospital of Eastern OntarioOttawa Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGadoxetic acidMedicineNephrogenic systemic fibrosisMeta-analysisGadoliniumAdverse effectGadodiamideRelative riskRadiologyConfidence intervalInternal medicineMagnetic resonance imagingGadolinium DTPA

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Gadoxetic acid is classified by the American College of Radiology as a group III gadolinium-based contrast agent (GBCA), which indicates that there are limited data regarding nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) risk, but there are few if any unconfounded cases of NSF. Purpose To perform a systematic review and meta-analysis of gadoxetic acid adverse events, including immediate hypersensitivity reactions, NSF, and intracranial gadolinium retention. Materials and Methods Original research studies, case series, and case reports that reported adverse events in patients undergoing gadoxetic acid-enhanced MRI were searched in MEDLINE (1946-2019), Embase (1947-2019), CENTRAL (March 2019), and Scopus (1946-2019). The study protocol was registered at Prospero (number 162811). Risk of bias was evaluated by using Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2, or QUADAS-2. Meta-analysis of proportions was performed by using random-effects modeling. Upper bound of 95% confidence interval (CI) for risk of NSF was determined. Results Seventy-one studies underwent full-text review. From 17 studies reporting 14 850 administrations, hypersensitivity reactions occurred in 0.3% (31 of 14 850; 95% CI: 0.2%, 0.4%) with zero deaths. From four studies reporting 106 administrations in patients with stage 4 or 5 chronic kidney disease or undergoing dialysis, the upper bound 95% CI for the risk of NSF was 2.8%. Five studies evaluating intracranial retention of gadolinium after gadoxetic acid administration were at high risk of bias. Conclusion Gadoxetic acid had a similar safety profile to American College of Radiology group 2 gadolinium-based contrast agents for hypersensitivity reactions and nephrogenic systemic fibrosis (NSF) but had lower confidence for risk of NSF because of fewer administrations in patients with severe kidney impairment. There is incomplete information documenting intracranial gadolinium retention in patients administered gadoxetic acid. © RSNA, 2020

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 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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.935
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.336
Teacher spread0.239 · 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