MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1590859099 · doi:10.5539/cco.v4n2p13

A Phase II Study of Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 Injections in Adult Patients With Recurrent Anaplastic Astrocytoma—Final report (Protocol BT-15)

2015· article· en· W1590859099 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stanisław R. Burzyński, Tomasz J. Janicki, Gregory S. Burzynski

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnaplastic astrocytomaTemozolomideChemotherapyToxicityInternal medicineSurgeryRefractory (planetary science)CohortRadiation therapyPhases of clinical researchGastroenterologyHypokalemiaOncologyAstrocytomaGlioma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recommended treatment for recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma (AA) consists of chemotherapy with temozolomide. There is an urgent need for new therapies for such patients. This phase II study evaluates efficacy and safety of a different form of cancer therapy that consists of antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 (ANP). 27 patients, ages 19 to 57 years (median, 41) with recurrent AA were treated. All patients previously underwent surgery, all received radiation therapy, and 16 underwent chemotherapy. The patients received treatment with ANP administered daily every four hours (median dose of A10 6.0 g/kg/d and AS2-1 0.25 g/kg/d). All patients were included in efficacy and safety analysis. The median duration of ANP was 23.1 weeks. A complete response was documented in 7%, partial response in 11%, and stable disease in 22% of patients. Progression-free survival and overall survival at 12 months was 26% and 41% respectively. The only serious toxicity was Grade 3 reversible hypokalemia in 7% of patients. There was no chronic toxicity and there was a high quality of life. ANP shows efficacy with very good toxicity profile in this cohort of patients with recurrent AA.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.211
Threshold uncertainty score0.397

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.080
GPT teacher head0.460
Teacher spread0.381 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations12
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207