MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1981713494 · doi:10.1038/aja.2013.38

Evolving landscape and novel treatments in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer

2013· review· en· W1981713494 on OpenAlexaff
Paul Toren, Martin Gleave

Bibliographic record

VenueAsian Journal of Andrology · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProstate cancerClinical trialDiseaseAndrogen receptorImmunotherapyTargeted therapyCancerOncologyBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineInternal medicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Treatment options for castrate-resistant prostate cancer (CRPC) have advanced in recent years and significantly improved the outlook for patients with this aggressive and lethal disease. Further understanding of the biology of CRPC has led to several new targeted therapies and continues to emphasize the importance of androgen receptor (AR) directed therapy. The treatment landscape is rapidly changing and further biologically rationale, biomarker-based ongoing clinical trials are needed. We review the recent results of major clinical trials in CRPC. New and investigational agents now in clinical evaluation are reviewed including inhibitors of angiogenesis, microtubules, chaperones, AR and intracellular kinases, as well as immunotherapy, radiopharmaceuticals and bone-targeted agents. The recent improvement in prognosis for CRPC brings continued optimism for further improvements. Thoughtful planning of clinical trials and further understanding of the mechanisms of resistance to therapies will allow for continued progress in patient care.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.320 · 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

Citations34
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAsian Journal of AndrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207