Bibliographic record
Abstract
The study compares letrozole (Femara and aminoglutethimide (AG), a standard therapy for postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, previously treated with anti-estrogens. 555 women were randomly assigned letrozole 2.5 mg once daily (n = 185), letrozole 0.5 mg once daily (n = 192) or aminoglutethimide 250 mg twice daily with corticosteroid support (n = 178) in an open-label, multicenter trial. The primary end-point was objective response rate (ORR), with time events as secondary. ORR was analysed nine months after enrollment of the last patient, while survival was analysed 15 months after the last patients was enrolled. We report the results of these analyses plus an extended period of observation (covering a total duration of approximately 45 months) to determine the duration of response and clinical benefit. Overall objective response rates (complete + partial) of 19.5%, 16.7% and 12.4% were seen for letrozole 2.5 mg, 0.5 mg and AG respectively. Median duration of response and stable disease was longest for letrozole 2.5 mg (21 months) compared with letrozole 0.5 mg (18 months) and AG (14 months). Letrozole 2.5 mg was superior to AG in time to progression, time to treatment failure and overall survival. Treatment-related adverse events occurred in fewer patients on letrozole (33%) than on AG (46%). Letrozole 2.5 mg offers longer disease control than aminoglutethimide and letrozole 0.5 mg in the treatment of postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer, previously treated with anti-estrogens.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
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".