Does estrogen play a role in response to adjuvant bone-targeted therapies?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone remains the most common site of breast cancer recurrence. The results of population studies, pre-clinical research and clinical studies in patients with metastatic disease provided a rationale for testing bone-targeted agents in the adjuvant setting. Despite the initial optimism, results from eight prospectively designed, randomized control studies powered to assess the value of adjuvant bone-targeted therapy in early breast cancer are conflicting. Data have shown that, where benefit exists, it tends to be in women with a "low estrogen environment", either through menopause or suppression of ovarian function. In this manuscript, we review clinical data supporting the hypothesis that estrogen levels may play a part in explaining the response of patients to bone-targeted agents in the adjuvant setting. The results presented to date suggest that there may be data supporting a unifying role for estrogen in adjuvant trials. However, in the absence of any prospective randomized trials in which estrogen data has been systematically collected we cannot specifically answer this question. We await the results of the Oxford overview analysis of individual patient data with interest.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".