A definition of “uncomplicated bone metastases” based on previous bone metastases radiation trials comparing single-fraction and multi-fraction radiation therapy
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most recent systematic review of randomized trials in patients with bone metastases has shown equal efficacy of single fraction (SF) and multiple fraction (MF) palliative radiation therapy in pain relief. It is important to determine the patient population to which the evidence applies. This study aims to examine the eligibility criteria of the studies included in the systematic review to define characteristics of "uncomplicated" bone metastases. Inclusion and exclusion criteria of 21 studies included in the systematic review were compared. Common eligibility criteria were documented in hopes of defining the specific features of a common patient population representative of those in the studies. More than half of the studies included patients with cytological or histological evidence of malignancy. Patients with impending and/or existing pathological fracture, spinal cord compression or cauda equina compression were excluded in most studies. Most studies also excluded patients receiving retreatment to the same site. "Uncomplicated" bone metastases can be defined as: presence of painful bone metastases unassociated with impending or existing pathologic fracture or existing spinal cord or cauda equina compression. Therefore, MF and SF have equal efficacy in patients with such bone metastases.
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.
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 | 0.007 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it