Large expert-curated database for benchmarking document similarity detection in biomedical literature search

Document recommendation systems for locating relevant literature have mostly relied on methods developed a decade ago. This is largely due to the lack of a large offline gold-standard benchmark of relevant documents that cover a variety of research fields such that newly developed literature search techniques can be compared, improved and translated into practice. To overcome this bottleneck, we have established the RElevant LIterature SearcH consortium consisting of more than 1500 scientists from 84 countries, who have collectively annotated the relevance of over 180 000 PubMed-listed articles with regard to their respective seed (input) article/s. The majority of annotations were contributed by highly experienced, original authors of the seed articles. The collected data cover 76% of all unique PubMed Medical Subject Headings descriptors. No systematic biases were observed across different experience levels, research fields or time spent on annotations. More importantly, annotations of the same document pairs contributed by different scientists were highly concordant. We further show that the three representative baseline methods used to generate recommended articles for evaluation (Okapi Best Matching 25, Term Frequency-Inverse Document Frequency and PubMed Related Articles) had similar overall performances. Additionally, we found that these methods each tend to produce distinct collections of recommended articles, suggesting that a hybrid method may be required to completely capture all relevant articles. The established database server located at https://relishdb.ict.griffith.edu.au is freely available for the downloading of annotation data and the blind testing of new methods. We expect that this benchmark will be useful for stimulating the development of new powerful techniques for title and title/abstract-based search engines for relevant articles in biomedical research.Peer reviewe

Impact of renal impairment on outcomes with lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment in the FIRST trial, a randomized, open-label phase 3 trial in transplant-ineligible patients with multiple myeloma

Renal impairment is associated with poor prognosis in myeloma. This analysis of the pivotal phase 3 FIRST trial examined the impact of renally adapted dosing of lenalidomide and dexamethasone on outcomes of patients with different degrees of renal impairment. Transplant-ineligible patients not requiring dialysis were randomized 1:1:1 to receive continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone until disease progression (n=535) or for 18 cycles (72 weeks; n=541), or melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide for 12 cycles (72 weeks; n=547). Follow-up is ongoing. Patients were grouped by baseline creatinine clearance into no (≥ 80 mL/min [n=389]), mild (≥ 50 to < 80 mL/min [n=715]), moderate (≥ 30 to < 50 mL/min [n=372]), and severe impairment (< 30 mL/min [n=147]) subgroups. Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone therapy reduced the risk of progression or death in no, mild, and moderate renal impairment subgroups vs. melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide therapy (HR = 0.67, 0.70, and 0.65, respectively). Overall survival benefits were observed with continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment vs.melphalan, prednisone, and thalidomide treatment in no or mild renal impairment subgroups. Renal function improved from baseline in 52.6% of lenalidomide and dexamethasone–treated patients. The safety profile of continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone was consistent across renal subgroups, except for grade 3/4 anemia and rash, which increased with increasing severity of renal impairment. Continuous lenalidomide and dexamethasone treatment, with renally adapted lenalidomide dosing, was effective for most transplant-ineligible patients with myeloma and renal impairment. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00689936); EudraCT (2007- 004823-39). Funding: Intergroupe Francophone du Myélome and the Celgene Corporation. © 2016 Ferrata Storti Foundation

Oral fingolimod for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (FORCIDP Trial): a double-blind, multicentre, randomised controlled trial

Background: Fingolimod is approved for the treatment of relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis and was effective in experimental autoimmune neuritis in rats, a possible model for chronic inflammatory demyelinating polyradiculoneuropathy (CIDP). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy of fingolimod in delaying disability progression in patients with CIDP who withdrew from currently effective treatments (intravenous immunoglobulin [IVIg] or corticosteroids). Methods: This double-blind, multicentre, randomised, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, event-driven study was done at 48 neurology centres in Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, the USA, and nine countries in Europe. Participants with CIDP who were receiving IVIg or corticosteroids were randomly assigned (1:1) to once-daily oral fingolimod 0·5 mg or placebo. Owing to the event-driven design, treatment duration was flexible and could be up to 4·5 years. Randomisation was done with an automated interactive voice response-web response system and was stratified by Inflammatory Neuropathy Cause and Treatment (INCAT) disability scale scores. Previous IVIg treatment was discontinued after one final course ending the day before the first dose of fingolimod or placebo was given, whereas corticosteroids were tapered off over 8 weeks after randomisation. The primary endpoint was time to first confirmed worsening (≥1 point increase on the adjusted INCAT disability scale score versus baseline) and was assessed in the full analysis set, which consisted of all patients who underwent randomisation and had at least one efficacy assessment for the primary analysis. The survival distribution functions of time to first worsening were estimated within each treatment group according to the Kaplan-Meier survival distribution function and compared with a stratified log-rank test. The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01625182. Findings: Of 106 participants randomly assigned between Jan 24, 2013, and March 10, 2016, 54 received fingolimod (41 who had been receiving IVIg and 13 who had been receiving corticosteroids) and 52 received placebo (41 who had been receiving IVIg and 11 who had been receiving corticosteroids). The trial ended for futility as recommended by an independent data monitoring committee after an interim analysis when 44 confirmed worsening events had occurred. At the end of the study, the survival estimate of the proportion of participants free from confirmed worsening was not significantly different between the fingolimod group (42%, 95% CI 23–60) and the placebo group (43%, 28–59; p=0·91). Adverse events occurred in 41 (76%) participants receiving fingolimod and 44 (85%) on placebo, and serious adverse events occurred in nine (17%) and four (8%) patients, respectively. The most common adverse events with fingolimod were headache (12 [22%] patients), hypertension (ten [19%]), and extremity pain (seven [13%]). Adverse events leading to study discontinuation occurred in seven (13%) participants on fingolimod and none on placebo. Interpretation: Fingolimod 0·5 mg once-daily was not better than placebo for the treatment of CIDP. Future trial designs should take account of the possibility that if IVIg is stopped abruptly, some patients might relapse soon afterwards whereas others might remain in remission. Funding: Novartis Pharma. © 2018 Elsevier Lt