Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Mark Vincent, M.B., Ch.B., a fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, Canada, is an oncologist at the London Regional Cancer Center, Ontario. There he is running a trial of the Cuban vaccine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients who haven’t been helped by chemotherapy. It is the vaccine’s first trial outside its homeland and Vincent would clearly like that soft-pedaled. In talking to a reporter, he made a point of telling her that he would not “want to be associated with any particular political viewpoint.” The conversation then turned to the rationale for the vaccine, starting with Vincent’s reminder that circulating estrogen—the estrogen that floats in the blood as a matter of course—can drive breast cancer growth. Similarly, he said, certain other cancers—non-small cell lung and many head and neck cancers, for instance—can be fueled by epidermal growth factor (EGF), which also circulates in the blood. The vaccine, accordingly, is meant to cause a patient’s immune system to form antibodies to EGF that will prevent its doing that. In a pilot study in Cuba, all patients given the vaccine have had advanced non-small cell lung cancer. The study is ongoing. In a follow-up study, the 80 patients in the Canadian trial, which opened last September, are being randomized to get or not get the vaccine. Vincent is not sure of definitive results. “We may find,” he said, “that our end-stage people with non-small cell lung cancer do not mount an immune response to anything because they are too immuno-depressed. If so, we may need to move to a randomized study of the vaccine in patients with slightly less advanced disease.” In the current trial, however, detecting survival differences between the treated patients and the controls is secondary to assessing the vaccine’s safety and immunogenicity. It is not, Vincent indicated, that the Cuban findings on these scores are invalid; they are not. In fact, after a trip to Havana with a Canadian Medical Research Council group, he came away thinking that many of the scientists he met there “seemed quite good and could probably find employment anywhere in the western world.” The difficulty, he said, was that “our [Canadian] patients are somewhat different from those in Cuba in that they have had chemotherapy of a different sort and may be at a different point in their natural history [of non-small cell lung cancer].” Besides, he added, the randomized design of the Canadian trial allows you to learn to what degree the vaccine is immunogenic. Otherwise, you might never know because it so happens that “there is a natural antibody level to EGF in everyone and it may fluctuate.” For all that, Vincent thinks the vaccine was soundly conceived. “It deserves a proper scientific test,” he said. “That’s where I am coming from.” Dr. Mark Vincent
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,003 | 0,004 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,006 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».