Olanzapine 5mg vs 10mg for the Prophylaxis of Chemotherapy-Induced Nausea and Vomiting – A Network Meta-Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Olanzapine administered at a 10mg dosage for prophylaxis of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting may be associated with fatigue, drowsiness and reduced general activity. Therefore, a 5mg dose may be preferred, to reduce the occurrence of adverse events. The aim of this study was to conduct a network meta-analysis, and report on the efficacy of olanzapine administered at 5mg, relative to when administered at 10 mg. Methods: We used previously-published data from the systematic review by Chow et al which identified 17 adult trials which used 10mg doses, 3 which used 5mg doses, and 1 which used a mix of 5 and 10mg doses. A multivariate network meta-analysis using a restricted maximum likelihood model was used. Results: The complete response rate in the acute phase is not statistically different, between 5mg and 10mg doses of olanzapine – RR 0.97, 95% CI: 0.83 – 1.13. Additionally, in the overall phase, 5mg olanzapine is similarly as efficacious as 10mg olanzapine – RR 0.95, 95% CI: 0.56 – 1.60. Evaluation of data demonstrated that there was inadequate information to compare the toxicities of the two doses. Conclusion: Our analyses support individual published trials, and the rationale for future trials to compare 5mg to 10mg olanzapine regimens in head-to-head comparisons.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".