Efficacy vs. effectiveness — docetaxel and prednisone in hormone refractory prostate cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To assess the clinical effectiveness of docetaxel and prednisone in a clinical setting and to compare the results to those seen in the pivotal clinical trial. To assess the impact of various factors on the prognosis of patients treated with docetaxel. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. The primary outcome measured was survival. Survival data was analyzed through the Kaplan-Meier methodology. A multivariate analysis of prognostic variables was also conducted. SETTING: Public cancer centers within the Canadian province of Alberta. PATIENTS: Hormone refractory, metastatic prostate cancer patients initiated on docetaxel chemotherapy between September 2004 and February 2007 within the Alberta Cancer Board. Main Outcome Measured. The primary outcome measured was median survival. RESULTS: Among 161 patients eligible for review, median survival was 17.22 months. Chemotherapy received after docetaxel was determined to be a significant favorable prognostic factor for survival (p<0.0001). CONCLUSION: In a clinical setting, docetaxel and prednisone did not perform as well in terms of median survival, as it was shown to in prior clinical trials (17.22 vs. 18.9 months). Further investigation into the impact of docetaxel and prednisone on quality of life in clinical practice, would complement the findings of this study.
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 | 0.011 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".