MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2024464990 · doi:10.1016/j.jbo.2012.12.004

Incidence and consequences of bone metastases in lung cancer patients

2013· article· en· W2024464990 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Kuchuk, Christina Addison, Mark Clemons, Iryna Kuchuk, Paul Wheatley‐Price

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of bone oncology · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineLung cancerOncologyInternal medicineIncidence (geometry)Bone painClinical trialCancerBone metastasisSurgeryMetastasis

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Bone metastases (BM) are common in NSCLC patients. Despite some potential positive effects of bone-targeted therapies, their use in NSCLC is infrequent, which may relate to the overall poor prognosis of advanced lung cancer. We reviewed the literature to evaluate the incidence, consequences and use of bone-targeting agents in lung cancer patients with BM in both the trial and non-trial clinical setting. METHODS: Published prospective and retrospective papers investigating lung cancer and BM, in trial and non-trial settings, were identified and are discussed in this review. RESULTS: BM are common in patients with advanced lung cancer and often present symptomatically with pain and skeletal related events (SREs). Patients with high bone turnover marker levels, multiple BM, and history of pathological fractures have shorter overall survival. In randomized studies bone-targeted therapies reduced the risk of SREs and prolonged the time to first SRE. The use of bone-targeted agents may also be associated with a survival benefit. CONCLUSION: BM are a common problem in advanced lung cancer. While the benefits of bone-targeted therapies have been demonstrated, their use is limited in non-trial populations. If better predictive markers of individual risk were available this might increase the appropriate use of bone-targeted agents.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
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: none
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.338 · 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

Citations110
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of bone oncologySame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207