MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4220998209 · doi:10.1097/cji.0000000000000418

Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor Exposure in Pregnancy: A Scoping Review

2022· article· en· W4220998209 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Immunotherapy · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Risks and Factors
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmunotherapyImmune systemProgrammed cell deathCytotoxic T cellPregnancyPD-L1Blocking antibodyImmune tolerance

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Since their approval, immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have become the standard of care for multiple malignancies. ICIs enhance tumor destruction by blocking important immunomodulatory pathways that regulate T-cell activation. These pathways include programmed cell death protein-1 and its ligands (programmed cell death protein-1 and programmed death ligand-1, respectively) and cytotoxic T-lymphocyte-associated protein 4. While blocking these pathways can enhance tumor destruction, these pathways are critical for the development of maternal tolerance towards the fetus. Therefore, if ICIs disrupt these immunomodulatory pathways, there could be a maternal immune response against the fetus, as was found in animal studies. With few reported cases of human pregnancy exposure to ICIs, the effects of ICIs on human pregnancy remain largely unknown. Here, we review and summarize the 6 cases of maternal exposure to immunotherapy that have been published before the present study. To add to the evidence, we present a case series of 2 patients who have been exposed to immunotherapy in pregnancy.

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)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0080.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.295 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations16
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of ImmunotherapySame topicCancer Risks and FactorsFrench-language works237,207