Improved Overall Survival in Dual Compared to Single Immune Checkpoint Inhibitors in <i>BRAF</i> V600-Negative Advanced Melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aim: To evaluate the efficacy of dual versus single immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICI) in BRAF wild-type advanced melanoma patients. Materials & methods: A retrospective study of all advanced BRAF wild-type melanoma patients on palliative-intent ICI between 2015 and 2020 (n = 67). Results: Dual ICI had better overall survival (OS) when compared with single ICI in BRAF wild-type patients (hazard ratio: 0.204; 95% CI: 0.064–0.649; p = 0.007), but lost its statistical significance (median OSl not reached vs 20.9 months; p = 0.213; adjusted hazard ratio: 0.475; 95% CI: 0.164–1.380; p = 0.171) when only including patients treated after 2018 when dual ICI was funded in our province. Dual ICI were significantly associated with more frequent (p = 0.005) and severe (p = 0.026) immune-related adverse events, and required more immune-related adverse events-indicated systemic corticosteroid use (p < 0.001) compared with single ICI. Conclusion: While limited by small sample size and retrospective nature, dual ICI may have non statistically significant trend toward better OS efficacy when compared with single ICI in BRAF V600 wild-type advanced melanoma 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 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".