Real-world comparative effectiveness and safety of pembrolizumab for PD-L1≥50% metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Despite the demonstrated efficacy of pembrolizumab in KEYNOTE-024, effectiveness and safety in routine practice remain unclear.Methods: The authors identified first-line pembrolizumab or chemotherapy patients from April 2013 to March 2021. The primary outcome was overall survival; the secondary safety outcomes included rates of hospitalization, emergency department visits, specialist visits, and adverse events. Baseline differences were adjusted using propensity score matching (1:1).Results: The matched cohort included 2284 pairs. Median overall survival for pembrolizumab (13.0 months) was significantly longer than for chemotherapy (9.2 months), with a hazard ratio of 0.81 (95% CI: 0.71–0.92). Pembrolizumab patients reported significantly more adverse events and specialist visits, as well as a higher 1-year cumulative incidence of direct hospitalizations.Conclusion: The survival benefit of first-line pembrolizumab persists in the real world, although with increased toxicity and diminished benefit.
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 | 0.010 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".