Nivolumab and Ipilimumab Immunotherapy for Hemodialysis Patients with Advanced Renal Cell Carcinoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab is standard therapy for the treatment of patients with previously untreated advanced renal cell carcinoma who are at intermediate or poor risk. However, data about the safety and efficacy of combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab in patients on hemodialysis are limited. Renal function has no known clinically important effects on the pharmacokinetics and clearance of nivolumab and ipilimumab. Further, most immune-related adverse events in patients on hemodialysis are thought to be manageable with the same treatments applied in patients with normal renal function. We present a case of advanced clear-cell renal cell carcinoma in a patient on hemodialysis who received combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab and who showed no evident signs of immune-related adverse events. Here, we confirm the safety and efficacy of combined immune checkpoint blockade with nivolumab and ipilimumab in a patient on hemodialysis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".