Is neoadjuvant chemotherapy with gemcitabine plus cisplatin beneficial in patients with muscle-invasive bladder cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Evaluation of: Weight CJ, Garcia JA, Hansel DE et al. Lack of pathologic down-staging with neoadjuvant chemotherapy for muscle-invasive urothelial carcinoma of the bladder. Cancer 115, 792-799 (2009). This study by the Glickman Urological Institute fails to show a beneficial role for neoadjuvant chemotherapy in muscle-invasive bladder cancer. The poor outcomes in the study could be attributed to the use of non-methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin and cisplatin regimens and to excessive delays in performing cystectomy. Randomized trials of neoadjuvant chemotherapy have shown improved survival and increased rates of pathologic complete response when using cisplatin-based combination therapies compared with local therapy alone. A regimen consisting of gemcitabine plus cisplatin has shown similar efficacy and less toxicity in the metastatic setting and further research is warranted before its efficacy can be extrapolated to the neoadjuvant setting.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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".