MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3163100624 · doi:10.1093/ckj/sfab090

Immune checkpoint inhibitor use in patients with end-stage kidney disease: an analysis of reported cases and literature review

2021· review· en· W3163100624 on OpenAlex
Abhijat Kitchlu, Kenar D. Jhaveri, Ben Sprangers, Motoko Yanagita, Rimda Wanchoo

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

VenueClinical Kidney Journal · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
FundersFondation contre le CancerFonds Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectDialysisPopulationCancerKidney diseaseDiseaseMalignancyInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Kidney cancerIntensive care medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), immunomodulatory antibodies that are used to enhance the immune system, have substantially improved the prognosis of patients with advanced malignancy. As the use of ICI therapy becomes increasingly widespread across different types of cancer, their use in patients receiving dialysis is likely to increase. In this review we summarize the current literature on the use of ICIs in end-stage kidney disease (ESKD) patients and provide aggregate data from reported cases and series. Based on available pharmacological information, ICIs require no dosing adjustment in ESKD patients. Analysis of the reported cases in the literature demonstrates a similar incidence of immune-related adverse events in patients with ESKD receiving dialysis as compared with the general population (49%). Severe reactions graded as 3 and 4 have been seen in 15 patients (16%). As such, it is important that these patients are monitored very closely for immune-related adverse events; however, the risk of these adverse events should not preclude patients on dialysis from receiving these therapies. Cancer remission (complete and partial) was seen in close to 30% of patients, stable disease was seen in 28% and progression of disease in ∼36%. One-third of the patients died. Urothelial and renal cell cancer represented approximately half of all treated cancers and accounted for ∼50% of all deaths reported. Additional data in the dialysis population with the use of ICIs and involvement in prospective studies are needed to better assess outcomes, particularly within specific cancer types.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.629
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.069
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.331 · 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