MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2051778548 · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2011.03.016

Heterogeneity in the definition of dose-limiting toxicity in phase I cancer clinical trials of molecularly targeted agents: A review of the literature

2011· review· en· W2051778548 on OpenAlexaff
Christophe Le Tourneau, Albiruni R. Abdul Razak, Hui Gan, Simona Pop, Véronique Dièras, Patricia Tresca, Xavier Paolettí

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsToxicityMedicineLimitingClinical trialMaximum tolerated doseOncologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

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)0.049
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.107
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.951
Threshold uncertainty score0.259

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0490.107
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.006
Bibliometrics0.0070.008
Science and technology studies0.0000.002
Scholarly communication0.0040.004
Open science0.0040.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
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 head0.812
GPT teacher head0.654
Teacher spread0.158 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
DomainMethods
GenreReview

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

Citations56
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of CancerSame topicStatistical Methods in Clinical TrialsFrench-language works237,207