MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Safety evaluation of ILaris: a real-world analysis of adverse events based on the FAERS Database

2025· dataset· en· W6977543026 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueOPAL (Open@LaTrobe) (La Trobe University) · 2025
Typedataset
Languageen
Field
Topic
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAdverse Event Reporting SystemAdverse effectPharmacovigilanceMedDRAPatient safetyMEDLINELactate dehydrogenaseQuarter (Canadian coin)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There is a lack of real-world studies on the safety of Ilaris in large populations. The purpose of this study was to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with Ilaris using data from the FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (FAERS) database to guide clinical use. We evaluated retrospectively extracted reports of AEs from the FAERS database between the first quarter of 2009 and the second quarter of 2024. The presence of a significant association between Ilaris and AEs was assessed by using disproportionality analyses including ROR,PRR,BCPNN,MGPS. After evaluating 14,691,170 data, 7968 ILaris-associated AEs were obtained after removing duplicates and unspecified sex items. A number of AEs were finalized through the study, including Common Pyrexia、Condition Aggravated、Influenza, and unexpected signals not listed in the drug insert, such as Pulmonary Thrombosis、Hepatomegaly、Blood Lactate Dehydrogenase Increased、Splenomegaly、Appendicitis. Ilaris induced AEs involving 27 system organ classes (SOCs). There were gender differences in AEs signaling associated with Ilaris. It is critical for healthcare professionals to closely monitor patients for symptoms (such as pulmonary thrombosis, Hepatomegaly, Blood Lactate Dehydrogenase Increased, Splenomegaly, Appendicitis) and other adverse events during treatment.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0030.005
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.004

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.272 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOPAL (Open@LaTrobe) (La Trobe University)French-language works237,207