MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Subsets More Likely to Benefit From Surgery or Prophylactic Cranial Irradiation After Chemoradiation for Localized Non–Small-Cell Lung Cancer

2002· article· en· W1981692336 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce Keith, Mark Vincent, Larry Stitt, Anna Tomiak, Richard Malthaner, Edward Yu, Pauline T. Truong, Richard Inculet, M S Lefcoe, A. Rashid Dar, Walter Kocha, Ian Craig

Bibliographic record

VenueAmerican Journal of Clinical Oncology · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBrain Metastases and Treatment
Canadian institutionsOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProphylactic cranial irradiationConventional PCISurgeryRetrospective cohort studyLung cancerRadiation therapyCancerStage (stratigraphy)Internal medicineOncologyMyocardial infarction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

After chemoradiation for localized non-small-cell lung cancer, surgery and prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) have been used as additional therapies. Less than a third of patients develop brain recurrences, or have local recurrence as their sole initial site of recurrence; these are groups that would benefit from PCI or surgery, respectively. Pretreatment identification of patients more likely to benefit from surgery or PCI would be useful. A retrospective analysis of 80 patients was performed to determine prognostic factors for such patterns of failure. Twenty-nine patients were subsequently selected for surgery in a nonrandomized manner. Seventeen patients had isolated local initial recurrence and 15 had brain recurrences. In multivariable analysis, female gender and elevated LDH were found to be risk factors for brain recurrence. In the subset with stage III disease (n = 76), squamous cell histology was a risk factor for isolated initial local recurrence in both univariable and multivariable analysis. It is possible to identify subsets that may show increased benefit from PCI or surgery.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.818
Threshold uncertainty score0.786

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations31
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAmerican Journal of Clinical OncologySame topicBrain Metastases and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207