MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388124078 · doi:10.15353/cjo.v84i4.4349

Erdafitinib-associated Central Serous Chorioretinopathy: A Case Report

2022· article· en· W4388124078 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Sierra Blanchard, Suzzane Li, Danielle Weiler

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometry · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOcular Oncology and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineSerous fluidAdverse effectOncologyInternal medicineIntensive care medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erdafitinib is a pan-fibroblast growth factor receptor (FGFR) kinase inhibitor approved to treat patients with metastatic or advanced urothelial carcinoma and is being developed for the treatment of other cancer types. This oral chemotherapeutic agent carries a warning for potential ocular adverse reactions including central serous chorioretinopathy and dry eyes. This case report describes an 88-year-old Caucasian male co-managed in the eye clinic over the course of treatment with erdafitinib for metastatic urothelial carcinoma. The patient developed asymptomatic episodes of recurring and remitting bilateral central serous chorioretinopathy correlating to erdafitinib dose modifications and interruptions. It is crucial for eye care providers to recognize the potential ocular adverse events related to erdafitinib, its drug class, and medications which target similar pathways. Effective communication and careful co-management with oncology is essential in providing quality care to this subset of patients. With the care coordination, an effective yet tolerable dosing may provide the patient with increased survival rate and improved quality of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.023

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0050.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.003
Research integrity0.0070.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.297 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations2
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian journal of optometry/CJO. Canadian journal of optometrySame topicOcular Oncology and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207