MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2070634470 · doi:10.1159/000225887

Phase I Toxicologic Study of Lonidamine in Cancer Patients

2009· article· en· W2070634470 on OpenAlexaff
Pierre R. Band, Michèle Deschamps, Jean‐Guy Besner, Robert Leclaire, P Gervais, Attilio De Sanctis

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Treatment and Pharmacology
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSomnolenceMedicineToxicityCancerChemotherapyPhases of clinical researchLung cancerBreast cancerAdverse effectSarcomaInternal medicinePharmacologyGastroenterologyPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

15 patients with metastatic cancer were treated with Lonidamine, a substituted indazole carboxylic acid active against the Lewis lung and Sarcoma 180 tumors. Single doses of 600 mg (350-400 mg/m2) mostly induced somnolence and gastro-intestinal side effects. Toxicity occurring during chronic administration of Lonidamine at doses ranging between 45 and 275 mg/m2 twice daily, mainly consisted of somnolence, myalgias, hyperesthesia and mild hair loss. Myalgias and hyperesthesias were markedly relieved with prednisone 5 mg twice daily. No laboratory abnormalities were seen. In 1 patient with breast cancer resistant to standard chemotherapeutic agents, a 30% reduction of measurable tumor masses was seen. In view of the lack of overlapping toxicity between Lonidamine and other chemotherapeutic drugs, and of its potential activity, it is suggested that phase II studies of Lonidamine be initiated at a dose of 135 mg/m2 twice daily.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized triallow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Empirical
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Non-randomized trialhigh
models agreeAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.057
GPT teacher head0.471
Teacher spread0.414 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations22
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncologySame topicCancer Treatment and PharmacologyFrench-language works237,207