Safety and clinical efficacy of everolimus in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Safety and clinical efficacy of everolimus in the treatment of advanced renal cell carcinoma (RCC) Rohan Shahani, Kevin G Kwan, Anil KapoorDivision of Urology, Department of Surgery, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton and McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, CanadaAbstract: Renal cell carcinoma (RCC) is one of the most lethal genitourinary malignancies. Recently, there has been a paradigm shift in the management of advanced RCC. New targeted therapies including vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors have been developed which have shown promising results in a patient population who otherwise had very few options for treatment. The first mTOR inhibitor, temsirolimus, an intravenous prodrug, has shown improved overall survival in poor prognosis patients. More recently, an oral mTOR inhibitor, everolimus (RAD 001), has been developed which has been shown to delay disease progression in patients with metastatic RCC who have progressed on other targeted therapies. Although a survival advantage in phase III trials is seen with everolimus, associated systemic toxicities, while generally well tolerated, are not insignificant. These include mucositis, hyperglycemia, hyperlipidemia, and pneumonitis. Despite the side effects, emerging evidence points to everolimus as the optimal second-line treatment for patients with advanced renal cell carcinoma.Keywords: metastatic renal cell carcinoma, everolimus, mTOR inhibitors, VEGF inhibitors
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".