Benefit of Temozolomide Compared to Procarbazine in Treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme at First Relapse: Effect on Neurological Functioning, Performance Status, and Health Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since high-grade malignant gliomas can seldom be treated curatively, the main aim of first line therapy is to improve progression free survival (PFS), to reduce morbidity, and to preserve, if not restore neurological functions and the capacity to perform daily activities. Focusing on a single clinical efficacy parameter in clinical trials may provide a potentially biased result, as for patients the overall result of treatment entails a more complex picture of weighing and balancing gains and losses on different outcome measures. In this paper we address different clinical outcomes measures separately and we illustrate the value of multiple outcome measures using the results of a recent clinical trial comparing temozolomide with procarbazine in the treatment of Glioblastoma Multiforme. Compared with procarbazine, temozolomide not only prolonged PFS, but also maintained neurological functioning and performance status for a longer period of time, and also improved health-related quality of life (HRQL). All these statistically significant outcomes demonstrate a remarkable consistency. In addition, temozolomide showed a trend of extending overall survival over procarbazine.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".