Adverse Effects of Bevacizumab During Treatment for Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective:Bevacizumab has been increasingly used in combination chemotherapy for the treatment of metastatic or recurrent colorectal cancer.The aim of this report is to underline the possible risks associated with bevacizumab use. Methods:Between July 2005 and March 2013, a total of 130 patients with metastatic colorectal cancer who received oxaliplatin as first-line chemotherapy were divided into 2 groups those treated with bevacizumab (group A) and those without (group B), and compared. The primary endpoint was to clarify the profile of bevacizumab - induced adverse effects. Secondary endpoints examined therapeutic effects, including overall survival (OS). Results:The incidence of major side effects was almost equivalent, except for bleeding, between the 2 groups. With regard to the therapeutic effects, 1 patient in group A showed complete disappearance of multiple lung metastases without any evidence of recurrence. The median OS was 926 days (95% confidence interval [CI], 756 - 1257) in group A and 534 days (95% CI, 421 - 621) in group B (p < 0.01). Conclusion:The results demonstrate that bevacizumab prolonged survival in these patients although there was an increased risk of clinically significant bleeding.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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".