ArticleFrontiers in immunology2026
Treatment context is associated with thrombocytopenia report phenotypes in lung cancer: an active-comparator analysis of FAERS and JADER.
Article in Frontiers in immunology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Thrombocytopenia during immune checkpoint inhibitor treatment in lung cancer may be coded as immune, marrow suppression, coagulation, or non-specific. We tested whether coding-defined report phenotypes differed across co-reported treatment contexts. Methods: We analyzed FAERS (2015Q1-2026Q2) and JADER through Japanese fiscal 2025Q4 (31 March 2026). Strict primary lung cancer reports were grouped as ICI without chemotherapy (C1), ICI plus chemotherapy (C2), or chemotherapy without ICI (C3). Firth models compared mutually exclusive immune-like and marrow-like anchors. Complementary analyses evaluated the broad cohort, treatment date compatibility, C3 small-cell influence, phenotype variants, onset windows, treatment-variable ablation in elastic-net report phenotype models, and a 120-report random stratified blinded review with independent ratings, third-person adjudication, inverse-selection weighting, and bootstrap uncertainty. Results: FAERS included 1,362 immune-like or marrow-like anchors. Relative to C1, adjusted odds ratios (ORs) for immune-like versus marrow-like phenotype were 0.111 (95% CI, 0.069-0.173) in C2 and 0.014 (0.006-0.029) in C3; C3 was exploratory because only eight reports were immune-like. In 2,835 broad cohort reports, adjusted immune-like composition was 13.0% (95% bootstrap interval, 11.0%-15.1%) in C1 and 4.7% (3.4%-6.2%) in C2. Treatment date and stricter phenotype analyses were directionally consistent. JADER reproduced the C2 versus C1 direction but showed calibration shift; treatment-variable ablation reduced cross-database discrimination. Reviewers agreed on 111/120 reports (92.5%; 95% CI, 87.5%-96.7%; Cohen's Conclusion: Coding-defined thrombocytopenia report composition differed across treatment contexts. Blinded review supported reproducible structured category assignment and score-based report ordering, while calibration shift and treatment-variable ablation defined important limits. Findings support pharmacovigilance case prioritization and hypothesis generation, not clinical diagnosis, incidence estimation, patient-level etiologic attribution, or causal inference.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.