MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1969861768 · doi:10.1586/14737140.5.5.767

Erlotinib in the treatment of non-small cell lung cancer

2005· review· en· W1969861768 on OpenAlexaffabout
Ewan Brown, Frances A. Shepherd

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2005
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErlotinibMedicineEpidermal growth factor receptorLung cancerCarboplatinGemcitabineTyrosine kinaseErlotinib HydrochloridePharmacologyOncologyClinical trialPaclitaxelInternal medicineCancerCancer researchCisplatinChemotherapyReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor is one of the most promising novel therapeutic strategies to be used in the treatment of patients with non-small cell lung cancer. A number of compounds that target the epidermal growth factor receptor are in an advanced stage of clinical development including both antibodies directed against the receptor and small molecule inhibitors of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase activity. This drug profile focuses on the development of erlotinib, an orally available inhibitor of epidermal growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase. Results of clinical trials are reviewed, two trials of erlotinib in combination, one with paclitaxel and carboplatin, the other with gemcitabine and cisplatin, and the National Cancer Institute of Canada--Clinical Trials Group BR21, the first study to demonstrate a survival benefit for this class of compound in non-small cell lung cancer. The future role of erlotinib in the management of patients with non-small cell lung cancer is also discussed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.015

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.048
GPT teacher head0.456
Teacher spread0.407 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations29
Published2005
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207