Efficacy and safety of novel complement inhibitors in atypical haemolytic uremic syndrome: a protocol for systematic review and meta-analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Atypical Haemolytic Uremic Syndrome (aHUS) is a rare but life-threatening thrombotic microangiopathy. If inadequately managed, aHUS can lead to progressive kidney failure, cardiovascular complications and multiorgan dysfunction, resulting in high healthcare costs and a substantial impact on patients' quality of life. Novel complement inhibitors offer potential advantages, yet comprehensive evidence comparing their efficacy and safety is limited. This protocol elaborates the systematic review plans to evaluate the effectiveness and the drug safety of complement inhibitors in aHUS. METHODS: A systematic search will be conducted across PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science and Scopus to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies include randomised controlled trials (RCTs), observational studies and case series with at least three aHUS patients treated with novel complement inhibitors. Two independent reviewers will perform data extraction and quality assessment using standardised tools, including the Risk of Bias Tool 2 for RCTs and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale for observational studies. A meta-analysis will be conducted if feasible, utilising a random-effects model to account for study heterogeneity. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required as only previously published data will be used. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and conferences, targeting healthcare professionals and policymakers to support evidence-based decision-making in aHUS management. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42025629879.
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
Direct model labels (unvalidated)
Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.
| Model arm | Categories | Study design | Confidence |
|---|---|---|---|
| gemma | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Systematic review | low |
| gpt | no category Domain: not available · Genre: Protocol About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no | Not applicable | high |
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 | 0.064 | 0.090 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.030 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.059 | 0.005 |
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, unvalidatedLabeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.
The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.
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".