MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1871827313 · doi:10.5430/jst.v5n2p27

Metastatic adamantinoma responds to treatment with receptor tyrosine kinase and Aurora A kinase inhibitor

2015· article· en· W1871827313 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Imran Unal, Odile David, Arkadiusz Z. Dudek

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPazopanibMedicineAdamantinomaCancer researchRadiation therapyTyrosine-kinase inhibitorTyrosine kinaseTargeted therapyOncologyInternal medicineReceptorCancerSunitinibAmeloblastomaAnatomy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adamantinoma is to be known as the one of the least common low-grade malignant bone tumors, commonly arising in thecenter of long bones, mostly in the tibial mid shaft. Adamantinomas are usually managed with wide local excision andreconstruction, unless unresectable or locally recurrent. Even though adamantinomas are managed as locally aggressivetumors, they usually recur and metastasize to sites including the lymph nodes, lungs, skeleton, liver and brain.Radiotherapy and chemotherapy do not seem to be effective treatment modalities for adamantinoma; recently publishedcase reports suggest tyrosine kinase inhibitors as an alternative therapeutic strategy. We report a case of a patient withmetastatic adamantinoma who progressed after first line therapy with doxorubicin and cisplatin, and responded topazopanib (selective multi-targeted receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor that inhibits angiogenesis) and alisertib (smallmolecule Aurora A kinase inhibitor) combination therapy. Tumor response to pazopanib and alisertib in combination as athird line therapy has led us to conclude that tyrosine kinase therapy could be considered in this setting.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.247
Threshold uncertainty score0.557

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207