MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4235783426 · doi:10.21203/rs.2.15875/v1

Risk of ophthalmic adverse events in patients treated with immune checkpoint inhibitor regimens: A systematic review and meta-analysis

2019· review· en· W4235783426 on OpenAlexaff
Yanli Hou, Di-ya Wang, Ruyue Tian, Jiexuan Hu, Wei Wang, Qiang Su, Yanling Wang, Miguel N. Burnier

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectMeta-analysisInternal medicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaOdds ratioRandomized controlled trialChemotherapyOncologyGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to evaluate the risks of ophthalmic adverse events (AEs) associated with immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) in patients with solid tumors.Methods Eligible studies were selected after a comprehensive search of multiple databases including phase II/III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) investigating ICIs in patients with the solid tumor. The data was analyzed by R software.Results After exclusion of ineligible studies, 21 RCTs met our strict inclusion criteria for the meta-analysis, included 11930 patients. Compared with chemotherapy, the odds ratio of all-grade ophthalmic treatment-related adverse events (trAEs) were significantly lower for PD-L1 inhibitors (OR: 0.18; 95% CI: 0.08-0.39; p<0.0001) and PD-1 inhibitors (OR 0.44, 95% CI: 0.23-0.83, p<0.050). The combination therapy of PD-1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors significantly increased the risks of all-grade ophthalmic trAEs (OR 5.29, 95% CI: 1.59-17.57, p<0.05) and all-grade ophthalmic immune-related AEs (irAEs) ( OR: 3.67; 95%CI: 1.08-12.50; p<0.05) compared with PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitors monotherapy. The combination therapy of ICIs plus chemotherapy also significantly increased the risks of all-grade ophthalmic trAEs (OR, 3.44; 95%CI, 1.72-6.88; p<0.001) and all-grade ophthalmic irAEs ( OR: 3.69; 95%CI: 1.32-10.32; p<0.05) compared with chemotherapy. The risks of high-grade ophthalmic AEs had no difference in any subgroup compared with control.Conclusions Our meta-analysis demonstrated that compared with chemotherapy, PD-L1/PD-1 inhibitors had lower risks of all-grade ophthalmic trAEs and non-specific ophthalmic trAEs (NS-trAEs) but had the same risk of ophthalmic irAEs. Combination therapy of ICIs plus chemotherapy had higher risks of all-grade ophthalmic trAEs and irAEs. Compared with PD-1 or CTLA-4 inhibitors monotherapy, PD-1 plus CTLA-4 inhibitors combination therapy had significantly higher risks of all-grade ophthalmic trAEs and irAEs.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.028
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.014
Threshold uncertainty score0.063

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.028
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.042
Bibliometrics0.0070.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.098
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.309 · 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 designMeta-analysis
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers→French-language works237,207→