MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1974784556 · doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.207

Biomarkers of clinical benefit for anti-epidermal growth factor receptor agents in patients with non-small-cell lung cancer

2011· review· en· W1974784556 on OpenAlexaff
Athanasios Pallis, Dean A. Fennell, Ewa Szutowicz, Natasha B. Leighl, Laurent Greillier, Rafał Dziadziuszko

Bibliographic record

VenueBritish Journal of Cancer · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLung cancerMedicineEpidermal growth factor receptorOncologyChemotherapyInternal medicineDiseaseTargeted therapyCancerTyrosine kinaseReceptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) remains by far the major cause of cancer-related death in the Western world in both men and women. The majority of patients will be diagnosed with metastatic disease, and chemotherapy doublets remain the cornerstone of treatment for these patients. However, chemotherapy has a minimal impact on long-term survival and prognosis remains poor for these patients. Further improvement in treatment is likely to require incorporation of novel targeted therapies. Among these agents, inhibitors of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) have demonstrated significant activity in the first-, second- or third-line treatment of NSCLC. The purpose of current paper is to present the evidence for using several proposed molecular biomarkers as a tool for selection of NSCLC patients for anti-EGFR treatment. According to current data, EGFR mutation status appears to be the strongest predictor for the selection of NSCLC patients to first-line treatment with EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitors vs chemotherapy. Use of other biomarkers remains investigational.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.747
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.345 · 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.

Study designOther design
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

Citations38
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBritish Journal of CancerSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207