MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1992830123 · doi:10.1136/jcp.2008.062505

Vascular endothelial growth factor activity after switching of bisphosphonate treatment for metastatic breast cancer

2009· article· en· W1992830123 on OpenAlexaff
Eitan Amir, Martina Trinkaus, CE Simmons, George Dranitsaris, M. Clemons

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Pathology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsZoledronic acidMedicineBisphosphonateVascular endothelial growth factorInternal medicineBreast cancerMetastatic breast cancerEndocrinologyBone diseaseOncologyCancerVEGF receptorsOsteoporosis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Recent data have shown a fall in vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) concentrations after bisphosphonate (BP) treatment in BP-naïve patients. It has therefore been proposed that BPs may have in vivo anti-VEGF effects. AIMS: To explore whether VEGF concentrations change after administration of a more potent BP in patients receiving long-term BP treatment. METHODS: 31 patients with breast cancer who had progressive metastatic bone disease despite treatment with early-generation BPs were switched to zoledronic acid. Serum VEGF concentrations were measured at baseline, and weeks 1, 2, 3, 4, 8 and 12. RESULTS: VEGF concentration per platelet count did not change significantly at any time during the 12 weeks after treatment with zoledronic acid. CONCLUSIONS: Switching to zoledronic acid did not suppress circulating serum VEGF concentrations in BP-pretreated patients. Novel approaches to assess the effect of BPs on the bone milieu may provide further insight into the possible antiangiogenic properties of BPs.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.433
Teacher spread0.361 · 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 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

Citations9
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical PathologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207