A comparative study of high-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation versus conventional chemotherapy as treatment for metastatic breast cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives. Data from one small randomized trial has suggested a benefit for high-dose chemotherapy/autologous hematopoietic progenitor cell transplantation (HDCT/AHPCT) as compared with conventional chemotherapy (CCT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. However, the study was considered to have had some limitations based on methodology, analysis, and sample size. The present study sought to compare differences in outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer undergoing HDCT/AHPCT as compared with historical controls undergoing CCT. The principal endpoints analyzed were overall survival and time to first failure after beginning chemotherapy. Secondary outcomes included an analysis of predictors of time to first recurrence of breast cancer, analyses of prognostic factors for overall survival at recurrence, of time to first failure from the time of beginning chemotherapy, and for survival after HDCT/AHPCT. Conclusions. The use of HDCT/AHPCT in metastatic breast cancer may confer advantages with respect to overall survival and time to first failure after beginning chemotherapy. These advantages appear to be independent of the effects of selection bias and variously cited prognostic factors. This benefit if confirmed in ongoing randomized trials will have to be considered in light of differences in cost and quality of life between the two therapeutic modalities. (Abstract shortened by UMI.)
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".