MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4224264528 · doi:10.3390/curroncol29040234

Cutaneous Adverse Events Associated with Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors: A Review Article

2022· review· en· W4224264528 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Chieh‐Hsun Chen, Hsin‐Su Yu, Sebastian Yu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersKaohsiung Medical University Chung-Ho Memorial HospitalMinistry of Science and Technology, Taiwan
KeywordsMedicineMaculopapular rashAdverse effectRashImmunologyImmune systemImmunotherapyCancerMonoclonal antibodyDermatologyAntibodyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have emerged as novel options that are effective in treating various cancers. They are monoclonal antibodies that target cytotoxic T-lymphocyte antigen 4 (CTLA-4), programmed cell death 1 (PD-1), and programmed cell death-ligand 1 (PD-L1). However, activation of the immune systems through ICIs may concomitantly trigger a constellation of immunologic symptoms and signs, termed immune-related adverse events (irAEs), with the skin being the most commonly involved organ. The dermatologic toxicities are observed in nearly half of the patients treated with ICIs, mainly in the form of maculopapular rash and pruritus. In the majority of cases, these cutaneous irAEs are self-limiting and manageable, and continuation of the ICIs is possible. This review provides an overview of variable ICI-mediated dermatologic reactions and describes the clinical and histopathologic presentation. Early and accurate diagnosis, recognition of severe toxicities, and appropriate management are key goals to achieve the most favorable outcomes and quality of life in cancer patients.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.112
GPT teacher head0.414
Teacher spread0.302 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations53
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207