Combination therapy versus single agent chemotherapy in non-small cell lung cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is proven evidence of improved symptom control with platinum-based chemotherapy in the palliation of non-small cell lung cancer, and small but definite improvements in progression-free and overall survival when compared with best supportive care. The newer chemotherapy agents vinorelbine, gemcitabine, docetaxel and paclitaxel all have single agent activity, and in combination with cisplatin these provide superior quality of life and/or survival compared with the single agents, albeit with some increase in haematological toxicity. Doublet chemotherapy consisting of a new agent combined with platinum, cisplatin by preference where tolerated, has become the standard of care for advanced disease. The use of a functional assessment of fitness, rather than chronological age alone, is appropriate in the treatment of elderly patients. Although in this group there is evidence that doublets are superior to single agents, treatment should be undertaken with caution. In the second line setting where patients are unlikely to tolerate combination therapy, single agents have proven superiority over best supportive care. Patients with poor performance status (PS2) without comorbidity may tolerate combination therapy, but currently available evidence is insufficient to allow a definitive recommendation for combination or single-agent chemotherapy.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".