MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2084281139 · doi:10.4137/cmt.s4456

Pegylated Liposomal Doxorubicin in the Management of Ovarian Cancer

2010· article· en· W2084281139 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Gabriella Ferrandina, Marco Petrillo, Angelo Licameli, Gilda Fuoco, Giovanni Scambia, Giacomo Corrado

Bibliographic record

VenueClinical Medicine Insights Therapeutics · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCarboplatinOvarian cancerDoxorubicinPaclitaxelDrugOncologyPharmacologyInternal medicineCancerChemotherapyCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the cytoreductive efforts, and the high responsiveness to standard carboplatin/pacllitaxel front-line treatment, ovarian cancer (OvCa) remains the most lethal gynaecological malignancy with a 5-yr overall survival of only 25%–30% in advanced stage disease. Among the pharmaceutical options available for treatment of OvCa, much attention has been dedicated to pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (PLD) (Doxil ® in the US; Caelyx ® in Canada and Europe); this drug has a unique formulation which has entrapped conventional doxorubicin in a bilayer lipidic sphere surrounded by a polyethylene glycol layer, which prolongs the persistence of the drug in the circulation and potentiates its intratumor accumulation. These properties represent the winning resource for this drug in that sustain its very favourable toxicity profile and the safe combination with other drugs. PLD has already been approved for treatment of advanced ovarian cancer patients failing first line platinum-based treatment. Moreover, Phase III trials have been completed, which will hopefully will bring PLD to front-line treatment, and in salvage setting in combination with platinum agents. This concise review will focus on the clinical role of PLD in the management of patients with epithelial OvCa.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.543
Threshold uncertainty score0.478

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.089
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.328 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueClinical Medicine Insights TherapeuticsSame topicOvarian cancer diagnosis and treatmentFrench-language works237,207