Scholar Data
Sign in

Automated Author Profile

Kapetanakis, Venediktos

Current S-Index

2.1

Sum of Dataset Indices for all datasets

Average Dataset Index per Dataset

0.5

Average Dataset Index per dataset

Total Datasets

4

Total datasets for this author

Average FAIR Score

52.9%

Average FAIR Score per dataset

Total Citations

2

Total citations to the author's datasets

Total Mentions

0

Total mentions of the author's datasets

S-Index Interpretation

S-Index Over Time

Cumulative Citations Over Time

Cumulative Mentions Over Time

Datasets

Cost-effectiveness analysis for avelumab first-line maintenance treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland - supplementary material

Figure S1. Model schematic.Curves provided in this image are hypothetical to illustrate how health state occupancy is determined. OS: overall survival; PD: progressed disease; PF: progression free; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S2. Parametric survival model extrapolations for OS (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; OS: overall survival.Figure S3. Parametric survival model extrapolations for OS (BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; OS: overall survival.Figure S4. Log-cumulative hazard plot for OS. BSC: best supportive care; OS: overall survival.Figure S5. Standard parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S6. Standard parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S7. Spline-based parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S8. Spline-based parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S9. Log-cumulative hazard plot for PFS. BSC: best supportive care; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S10. Extrapolations for TTD (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; TTD: time to treatment discontinuation.Table S1. Statistical goodness-of-fit scores for OS.Table S2. Statistical goodness-of-fit scores for PFS.Table S3. Model parameters.

Authors

  • Critchlow, Simone ;
  • Bullement, Ash ;
  • Crabb, Simon ;
  • Jones, Robert ;
  • Christoforou, Katerina ;
  • Amin, Amerah ;
  • Xiao, Ying ;
  • Kapetanakis, Venediktos ;
  • gnes Benedict, A´ ;
  • Chang, Jane ;
  • Kearney, Mairead ;
  • Eccleston, Anthony
1 Citation0 Mentions90% FAIR1.0 Dataset Index
10.25402/fon.238213232023

Cost-effectiveness analysis for avelumab first-line maintenance treatment of advanced urothelial carcinoma in Scotland - supplementary material

Figure S1. Model schematic.Curves provided in this image are hypothetical to illustrate how health state occupancy is determined. OS: overall survival; PD: progressed disease; PF: progression free; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S2. Parametric survival model extrapolations for OS (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; OS: overall survival.Figure S3. Parametric survival model extrapolations for OS (BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; OS: overall survival.Figure S4. Log-cumulative hazard plot for OS. BSC: best supportive care; OS: overall survival.Figure S5. Standard parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S6. Standard parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S7. Spline-based parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S8. Spline-based parametric survival model extrapolations for PFS (BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S9. Log-cumulative hazard plot for PFS. BSC: best supportive care; PFS: progression-free survival.Figure S10. Extrapolations for TTD (avelumab + BSC). BSC: best supportive care; KM: Kaplan-Meier; TTD: time to treatment discontinuation.Table S1. Statistical goodness-of-fit scores for OS.Table S2. Statistical goodness-of-fit scores for PFS.Table S3. Model parameters.

Authors

  • Critchlow, Simone ;
  • Bullement, Ash ;
  • Crabb, Simon ;
  • Jones, Robert ;
  • Christoforou, Katerina ;
  • Amin, Amerah ;
  • Xiao, Ying ;
  • Kapetanakis, Venediktos ;
  • gnes Benedict, A´ ;
  • Chang, Jane ;
  • Kearney, Mairead ;
  • Eccleston, Anthony
1 Citation0 Mentions90% FAIR1.0 Dataset Index
10.25402/fon.23821323.v12023

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Amivantamab vs Mobocertinib in Platinum-pretreated EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Mutated NSCLC - supplementary material

Supplementary MethodsSupplementary ResultsSupplemental Table 1. Naïve and population-adjusted estimates of ORR and CBR for amivantamab: sensitivity analysesSupplemental Figure 1. Histogram of the weights associated with matching in the a) base case analysis; b) adjusting for additional factors and c) using the CHRYSALIS primary efficacy population (n = 81)Supplemental Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis results of PFS of amivantamab versus mobocertinib a) adjusting for additional factors and b) using the CHRYSALIS primary efficacy population (n = 81)Supplemental Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis results of OS of amivantamab versus mobocertinib a) adjusting for additional factors and b) using the CHRYSALIS primary efficacy population (n = 81)Supplemental Figure 3. Sensitivity Analysis: Population-adjusted safety outcomes for amivantamab in the safety population (matched for an additional four factors) and mobocertinib in the PPP populationSupplemental Figure 4. Sensitivity Analysis: Population-adjusted safety outcomes for amivantamab in the n = 81 population and mobocertinib in the PPP population

Authors

  • Min Kim, Tae ;
  • Girard, Nicolas ;
  • Leighl, Natasha B. ;
  • Sabari, Joshua ;
  • Rahhali, Nora ;
  • A Schioppa, Claudio ;
  • Diels, Joris ;
  • Sermon, Jan ;
  • Chandler, Conor ;
  • Kapetanakis, Venediktos ;
  • Jain, Ruhee ;
  • Li, Tracy ;
  • Sanden, Suzy Van
0 Citations0 Mentions15% FAIR0.1 Dataset Index
10.25402/fon.244414992023

Matching-Adjusted Indirect Comparison of Amivantamab vs Mobocertinib in Platinum-pretreated EGFR Exon 20 Insertion-Mutated NSCLC - supplementary material

Supplementary MethodsSupplementary ResultsSupplemental Table 1. Naïve and population-adjusted estimates of ORR and CBR for amivantamab: sensitivity analysesSupplemental Figure 1. Histogram of the weights associated with matching in the a) base case analysis; b) adjusting for additional factors and c) using the CHRYSALIS primary efficacy population (n = 81)Supplemental Figure 2. Sensitivity analysis results of PFS of amivantamab versus mobocertinib a) adjusting for additional factors and b) using the CHRYSALIS primary efficacy population (n = 81)Supplemental Figure 3. Sensitivity analysis results of OS of amivantamab versus mobocertinib a) adjusting for additional factors and b) using the CHRYSALIS primary efficacy population (n = 81)Supplemental Figure 3. Sensitivity Analysis: Population-adjusted safety outcomes for amivantamab in the safety population (matched for an additional four factors) and mobocertinib in the PPP populationSupplemental Figure 4. Sensitivity Analysis: Population-adjusted safety outcomes for amivantamab in the n = 81 population and mobocertinib in the PPP population

Authors

  • Min Kim, Tae ;
  • Girard, Nicolas ;
  • Leighl, Natasha B. ;
  • Sabari, Joshua ;
  • Rahhali, Nora ;
  • A Schioppa, Claudio ;
  • Diels, Joris ;
  • Sermon, Jan ;
  • Chandler, Conor ;
  • Kapetanakis, Venediktos ;
  • Jain, Ruhee ;
  • Li, Tracy ;
  • Sanden, Suzy Van
0 Citations0 Mentions15% FAIR0.1 Dataset Index
10.25402/fon.24441499.v12023