Epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitors in the treatment of lung cancer: reality and hopes
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
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Inhibition of the epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is now an established part of the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer. This review summarizes the clinical trials that have been performed with monoclonal antibodies and small molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitors targeting EGFR in nonsmall cell lung cancer. RECENT FINDINGS: Erlotinib has established second and third-line efficacy following the BR.21 study. Recently the INTEREST trial showed gefitinib to have an equivalent outcome to docetaxel in the second line setting. Numerous other tyrosine kinase inhibitor drugs and monoclonal antibodies have demonstrated clinical activity in phase I and phase II trials. Novel tyrosine kinase inhibitors may have the ability to overcome resistance to first generation tyrosine kinase inhibitor therapy. Furthermore there are encouraging studies combining EGFR inhibitors and antiangiogenesis drugs such as bevacizumab. SUMMARY: EGFR inhibition, by a range of strategies, remains a central node in the treatment of nonsmall cell lung cancer.
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) | 0.002 | 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