MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Side effects of extended interval dosing of checkpoint inhibitors among patients during COVID-19 pandemic at the Moncton and the Miramichi hospitals.

2021· article· en· W3166786170 on OpenAlexaffabout
Mahmoud Abdelsalam, Rana Sughayar, Glenn Myers, Mrudula Avileli, Maged Salem

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts
Canadian institutionsMoncton Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePembrolizumabCancerDosingDurvalumabPopulationLung cancerNivolumabInternal medicineAdverse effectPandemicEmergency medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseImmunotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

e14550 Background: Since the COVID-19 pandemic started, managing cancer patients who are more vulnerable than the rest of the population has been a concern. One of the strategies to decrease cancer patient visits to the Oncology Clinic was by the use of an extended dosing schedule of immune checkpoint inhibitors. The goal of the present study is to record and describe patients’ experiences with irAEs on the modified treatment schedules. Methods: The study included cancer patients getting their treatment at the cancer care clinics at The Moncton Hospital and the Miramichi Hospital, and who switched to receiving either a modified dose of Pembrolizumab or Durvalumab. These participants were asked to complete a short survey that covered important data in their diagnosis and treatment, as well as the type of cancer diagnosed and which drug they were prescribed for treatment. Participants were also asked about the presence of any possible immune-related symptoms from a list of possible AEs since their last treatment visit, and to indicate (A) how often the symptom was experienced, and (B) how severe the symptom was. Results: Twenty-one patients filled out the questionnaire half of whom were females. Most of the patients had lung cancer and were on pembrolizumab. All the patients interviewed developed at least one new symptom after the change in the dose was introduced. The most frequent symptoms reported were itchy skin and fatigue and they were severely experienced. However, very few of the symptoms experienced required a physician consult or hospitalization. Most of the participants welcomed the change in the dose to protect them from COVID-19 and were mainly indifferent as to whether they get the low dose more frequently or the higher dose less frequently. Conclusions: This study has highlighted the frequency and severity of irAEs with the use of extended dosing schedule of immune checkpoint inhibitors. Future research should have more patients to validate this outcome and look for the causes behind the increased incidence and severity of irAEs with higher dose less frequent intervals of these immunotherapies.[Table: see text]

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.074
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.386 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicCOVID-19 and healthcare impacts→French-language works237,207→