Consensus report of the International Society of Gastrointestinal Oncology on therapeutic progress in advanced pancreatic cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since 1997, when gemcitabine showed superior clinical benefit to single-agent 5-fluorouracil, it has remained the standard of care for the treatment of advanced pancreatic cancer. Numerous new agents, both cytotoxic and targeted, have been tested against this standard. Some trials showed improved response rates or progression free survival, but there was no clear improvement in survival. For the current report, those trial results were reviewed in depth for methodology, endpoints, and study characteristics. More recent studies have shown progress. Studies with combinations of gemcitabine and capecitabine and with the epidermal growth factor receptor antagoinist, erlotinib, have demonstrated survival benefits. Currently, studies of combinations with oxaliplatin, bevacizumab, and cetuximab are ongoing. Other targeted therapies also are considered for future clinical trials. Based on a comprehensive review of past trials, a consensus on endpoints in the treatment of pancreatic cancer and an approach to new trials is presented.
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 | 0.030 | 0.027 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
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".