78P Electronic tool for high grade adverse event (AE) reporting in gynecology (gyne) clinical trials (ClinT) at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Accurate and timely evaluation of AEs on ClinT is critical to assure patient (pt) safety. In PM ClinT toxicity is captured in real time with AEs assessed by a ClinT nurse, standardized with CTCAE and electronically sourced, and approved by a physician. AEs recorded in the PM ClinT AE database between 01/2016 and 12/2018 were evaluated. Gyne ClinT assessing systemic therapy were included. Inferential statistics on risk factors of grade ≥ 3 (G3+) AE reporting and GEE logistic models with Odds Ratios (OR) were performed. Multivariate (m/v) analysis was adjusted to age, ClinT phase, sponsor, therapy combination and type. We identified 516 ClinT with 3,467 pts on therapy. Among them, 42 ClinT were launched in the gyne site (52% ovarian, 10% uterine, 10% cervix, 28% multiple). 317 unique pts were accrued in gyne ClinT (38 pt in >1ClinT [range 1–4 ClinT]), yielding 362 pts on therapy. 17,187 AEs were reported, 10.6% were grade ≥3 (G3+), 0.9% G4+ and 0.02% G5. The most common G3+ AEs were hematological (49%), gastro-intestinal (13%). On m/v analysis, no odds differences of G3+ AEs were detected according to study phase. Pts enrolled in immunotherapy ClinT had lower odds of G3+ AE than pts on targeted or other therapy (OR 0.55; 0.32-0.96). There was greater odds of G3+ AEs in ClinT assessing combination vs single therapeutics (OR 2.27; 1.40-3.69), and in investigator initiated ClinT vs not (OR 2.29; 1.24-4.23). Pts aged <50 (OR 2.13; 1.01-4.48) and >65 (OR 1.72; 1.03-2.83) had greater odds of G3+ AEs than pts aged 50 to 65 years. Overall, when compared to other disease sites, the odds of having a G3+ AE reported in gyne ClinT was no different, but the odds of G4+ AEs (OR 0.54; 0.38-0.74) and G5 AEs (OR 0.08; 0.01-0.26) was lower.Table: 78PCategoryN of subjectsPhaseI/IIIII246 (68%)116 (32%)AgeMedian60.7 years; 23 to 81.5 yearsInvestigational interventionImmunotherapyTargeted therapyOther86 (24%)255 (70%)21 (6%)Therapy CombinationYes194 (54%)Investigator InitiatedYes74 (21%)Days to G3+ AE onsetMedian54.9 days; 0 to 1,540 days Open table in a new tab In gyne ClinT the odds of having a G3+ AE reported were more frequent on combination therapy studies and investigator initiated trials. Lower odds of having G3+ AEs were detected in immunotherapy trials and pts aged 50-65.
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 | 0.016 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".