Clinical Issues and Treatment of Lung Cancer in Mexico
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Retrospective analysis of 101 lung cancer patients treated at the INER [National Respiratory Diseases Institute] in Mexico from January 2006 to October 2007. Objective: Analysis of clinical situation and treatment. Results: The study comprised 59 men and 42 women: 58 % > 60 years old. 14.8% were non-smokers or had no smoking history. 85.2% were heavy smokers with a smoking history above15 packs per year. Eleven patients had one family member with cancer. 86.1% of them were admitted to hospital when the tumor stage was between IIIA and IV. 21 patients of this group had metastasis. 86.1% had an ECOG grade of 0.2. Two analytical parameters were handled: RECIST and the media overall survival. 93 of 101 patients (92%) were treated with chemotherapy: 51 of them (54.7%) with Cisplatine and Paclitaxel, 29 (31.1%) with Cisplatine and Vinorrelbine, and 13 (13.8%) with Cisplatine and Gemcitabine, each one for 2 to 6 cycles. According to RECIST, 6 patients had a complete response, 19 had progressions with distal metastasis, and 68 had partial responses. The median overall survival was of 17.0, 18.4, and 16.1months, respectively. Chirurgic intervention was carried out in 8 patients, lobectomy in 7 patients, and one had a pneumonectomy with resection of mediastinal lymph nodes and adyuvant chemotherapy. Histopathology of the lymph nodes and bronchial section were negative for neoplasia. The disease-free survival was 13 to 25 months in lobectomies and 22 months in the pneumonectomy. The cause of dead could not be specified because they did not continue attending post-treatment control. Conclusion: Lack of Health Education amongst patients and their families was found to be a major cause which prevented a more effective result of the treatment. This study also concludes that a multidisciplinary treatment for lung cancer patients is required.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 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".