Utilization of prophylactic cranial irradiation in patients with limited stage small cell lung carcinoma
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This study reports the adoption of prophylactic cranial irradiation (PCI) in patients with limited stage small cell lung carcinoma (LS-SCLC) at Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) and the factors that impact PCI utilization. METHODS: A retrospective review was performed on all patients with LS-SCLC treated at PMH from 1997 to 2007. Clinical details including the rate of PCI utilization were determined and, for patients not receiving PCI, the documented reason was recorded. Brain failure free survival (FFS) and overall survival (OS) were estimated by the Kaplan-Meier method, comparing patients treated with or without PCI. Pearson chi-square test was used to determine factors associated with PCI use. RESULTS: Two hundred seven patients were treated for LS-SCLC and 61.4% (n = 127) of these patients received PCI. The most common documented reason for not receiving PCI was patient refusal, typically because of concerns about PCI toxicity. Patients older than 65 were significantly less likely to receive PCI. Brain FFS and OS rates were significantly higher in patients who received PCI. CONCLUSIONS: Not all eligible patients are receiving PCI, despite its significant effect on reducing brain metastases and improving OS. Emphasizing the benefits of PCI to patients, when discussing potential toxicities, may improve utilization.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 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 it