Adjuvant targeted therapy in early breast cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
For this review, the authors appraised the evidence for adjuvant trastuzumab therapy in early breast cancer. There was level 1 evidence to support the routine use of 1 year of adjuvant trastuzumab in conjunction with chemotherapy for women with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)-positive early breast cancer. The relative benefits of concurrent versus sequential administration remained unclear; however concurrent administration permitted the earliest possible intervention with trastuzumab with possible superiority. There was evidence to support the use of trastuzumab in both lymph node-positive and high-risk lymph node-negative patients, and preliminary data suggested that all patient subgroups that were eligible for the trials benefit equally from trastuzumab. Adjuvant trastuzumab was associated with a risk of cardiotoxicity, the long-term impact of which remains largely unknown. Routine cardiac risk assessment considering left ventricular ejection fraction, age, and prior history of cardiac events is recommended along with the selection of trastuzumab-based regimens that minimize cardiotoxicity. Trastuzumab acquisition costs for 1 year of therapy were the largest component of treatment costs.
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 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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 teacher head, 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".