Phase I trial of gemcitabine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (GAP) in patients with advanced solid tumors
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
A phase I study was conducted to determine the recommended phase II dose, safety profile and anti-tumor activity of a combination regimen of gemcitabine, doxorubicin and cisplatin (GAP). Gemcitabine (G) and doxorubicin (A) were administered on days 1 and 8 at increasing doses (starting level 800 and 15 mg/m, respectively). Cisplatin (P) was given at a fixed dose of 50 mg/m2 (day 1). Treatment cycles were repeated every 3 weeks. Nineteen patients received 76 cycles of treatment. A and G were escalated up to 20 and 1000 mg/m2, and finally de-escalated to 15 and 800 mg/m2. The dose-limiting toxicity was neutropenic fever that was observed in 21% of the patients. Non-hematological toxicities included mild/moderate nausea, vomiting, diarrhea and fatigue, observed in 58, 37, 21 and 95% of the patients, respectively. Of 19 patients with evaluable disease, six patients had a partial response yielding an overall response rate of 31.6 % (95% confidence interval 12.6-56.6%) by intention-to-treat. We conclude that GAP is an active and tolerable treatment combination, with minimal visceral organ toxicities.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 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