Concentration‐QT modelling shows no evidence of clinically significant QT interval prolongation with capivasertib at expected therapeutic concentrations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pharmacokinetics-matched digital electrocardiogram data (n = 503 measurements from 180 patients) collected in a first-in-human, multi-part, dose-escalation (from 80 to 800 mg) and dose expansion (at 480 mg) phase 1 study in patients with advanced solid malignancies, were used to assess potential risk of QT prolongation associated with the AKT inhibitor capivasertib. The relationship between plasma drug concentrations and baseline-adjusted Fridericia-corrected QT (ΔQTcF) values was estimated using a prespecified linear mixed-effects model. The model provided an unbiased reproduction of the experimental data set, estimating a small but positive correlation between capivasertib concentration and ΔQTcF. At the expected therapeutic dose (400 mg twice daily) the predicted mean ΔQTcF at the steady state maximum concentration was 3.97 ms with an upper limit of the 90% CI of 5.07 ms; below the 10 ms limit proposed by ICH E14 guidance. This analysis suggests that capivasertib is not expected to present a clinically significant risk for QT prolongation that is associated with pro-arrhythmic effects.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".