MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3202872245 · doi:10.1136/jitc-2021-003467

Acute kidney injury in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitors

2021· article· en· W3202872245 on OpenAlexaff
Shruti Gupta, Samuel Short, Meghan E. Sise, Jason Prosek, Sethu M. Madhavan, María José Soler, Marlies Ostermann, Sandra M. Herrmann, Ala Abudayyeh, Shuchi Anand, Ilya Glezerman, Shveta S. Motwani, Naoka Murakami, Rimda Wanchoo, David I. Ortiz-Melo, Arash Rashidi, Ben Sprangers, Vikram Aggarwal, Abhinav Malik, Sebastian Loew, Christopher A. Carlos, Wei‐Ting Chang, Pazit Beckerman, Zain Mithani, Chintan V. Shah, Amanda DeMauro Renaghan, Sophie de Seigneux, Luca Campedel, Abhijat Kitchlu, Daniel Sanghoon Shin, Sunil Rangarajan, Priya Deshpande, Gaia Coppock, Mark Eijgelsheim, Harish Seethapathy, Meghan Lee, Ian A. Strohbehn, Dwight H. Owen, Marium Husain, Clara García-Carro, Sheila Bermejo, Nuttha Lumlertgul, Nina Seylanova, Lucy Flanders, Busra Isik, Omar Mamlouk, Jamie S. Lin, Pablo García, Aydin Kaghazchi, Yuriy Khanin, Sheru Kansal, Els Wauters, Sunandana Chandra, Kai M. Schmidt‐Ott, Raymond K. Hsu, Maria Clarissa Tio, Suraj Sarvode Mothi, Harkarandeep Singh, Deborah Schrag, Kenar D. Jhaveri, Kerry L. Reynolds, Frank B. Cortazar, David E. Leaf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal for ImmunoTherapy of Cancer · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoSt. Thomas HospitalUniversity Health Network
FundersNational Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteNational Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute
KeywordsMedicineAcute kidney injuryRenal functionInternal medicineCreatinineOdds ratioProportional hazards modelBiopsyUrologyGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Immune checkpoint inhibitor-associated acute kidney injury (ICPi-AKI) has emerged as an important toxicity among patients with cancer. METHODS: We collected data on 429 patients with ICPi-AKI and 429 control patients who received ICPis contemporaneously but who did not develop ICPi-AKI from 30 sites in 10 countries. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify predictors of ICPi-AKI and its recovery. A multivariable Cox model was used to estimate the effect of ICPi rechallenge versus no rechallenge on survival following ICPi-AKI. RESULTS: ICPi-AKI occurred at a median of 16 weeks (IQR 8-32) following ICPi initiation. Lower baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate, proton pump inhibitor (PPI) use, and extrarenal immune-related adverse events (irAEs) were each associated with a higher risk of ICPi-AKI. Acute tubulointerstitial nephritis was the most common lesion on kidney biopsy (125/151 biopsied patients [82.7%]). Renal recovery occurred in 276 patients (64.3%) at a median of 7 weeks (IQR 3-10) following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids within 14 days following ICPi-AKI diagnosis was associated with higher odds of renal recovery (adjusted OR 2.64; 95% CI 1.58 to 4.41). Among patients treated with corticosteroids, early initiation of corticosteroids (within 3 days of ICPi-AKI) was associated with a higher odds of renal recovery compared with later initiation (more than 3 days following ICPi-AKI) (adjusted OR 2.09; 95% CI 1.16 to 3.79). Of 121 patients rechallenged, 20 (16.5%) developed recurrent ICPi-AKI. There was no difference in survival among patients rechallenged versus those not rechallenged following ICPi-AKI. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who developed ICPi-AKI were more likely to have impaired renal function at baseline, use a PPI, and have extrarenal irAEs. Two-thirds of patients had renal recovery following ICPi-AKI. Treatment with corticosteroids was associated with improved renal recovery.

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)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.284 · 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

Citations225
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal for ImmunoTherapy of CancerSame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207