MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2014090721 · doi:10.1056/nejme068065

Anthracyclines and the Tailoring of Treatment for Early Breast Cancer

2006· letter· en· W2014090721 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Martine Piccart

Bibliographic record

VenueNew England Journal of Medicine · 2006
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpirubicinMedicineCyclophosphamideBreast cancerRegimenChemotherapyOncologyAnthracyclineFluorouracilInternal medicineMethotrexateCancerAdjuvantHormonal therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adjuvant chemotherapy and hormonal treatment have substantially reduced the risks of relapse and death that threaten a woman for many years after the diagnosis of breast cancer.1 Progress in breast-cancer treatment is due in part to the incorporation of powerful cytotoxic agents into chemotherapy regimens and to the optimization of the schedules of administration of these agents. Anthracycline-based chemotherapy combinations, such as the cyclophosphamide–epirubicin–fluorouracil (CEF) regimen evaluated in the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group Mammary.5 (MA.5) study,2 when compared with the regimen of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF), produce on average a further relative reduction in deaths . . .

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Commentary · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.790
Threshold uncertainty score0.435

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.283
Teacher spread0.267 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreCommentary

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

Citations33
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNew England Journal of MedicineSame topicBreast Cancer Treatment StudiesFrench-language works237,207