Prolonged pegylated liposomal doxorubicin treatment for recurrent pelvic cancers: a feasibility study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We conducted a proof of concept study evaluating prolonged treatment with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin for recurrent ovarian, tubal and peritoneal carcinoma. Thirteen consecutive patients received an average of 22.6 cycles of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, with an average cumulative dose of 1409 mg/m(2) . Progression-free survival at 18 months was 61.5%, and was longer than the previous progression-free survival in 10 of the 13 patients. Overall 5-year survival was 78.8%. Despite prolonged use and relatively large cumulative doses of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, most of the patients had mild to moderate side-effects, none of the patients had detectable cardio-toxic side-effects, and a positive impact on the performance status was noticed. Thus, in our group of patients, continued pegylated liposomal doxorubicin treatment was associated with a longer progression-free interval and allowed improved performance status with manageable toxicity.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".