MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2104336706 · doi:10.1080/13577140020008066

Doxorubicin‐Based Chemotherapy for the Palliative Treatment of AdultPatients with Locally Advanced or Metastatic Soft‐Tissue Sarcoma:A Meta‐Analysis and Clinical Practice Guideline

2000· article· en· W2104336706 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSarcoma · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSarcoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsCancer Care OntarioOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
FundersOntario Ministry of Health and Long-Term CareCancer Care Ontario
KeywordsMedicineDoxorubicinSoft tissue sarcomaOncologyChemotherapyInternal medicineSarcomaAdverse effectGuidelineRandomized controlled trialContext (archaeology)SurgerySoft tissuePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose. To make recommendations for the use of doxorubicin-based chemotherapy in patients with soft-tissue sarcoma.Patients. The recommendations apply to patients with symptomatic unresectable locally advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma who are candidates for palliative chemotherapy.Methods. A systematic review of the published literature was combined with a consensus process around the interpretation of the evidence in the context of conventional practice to develop an evidence-based practice guideline.Results. Eight randomized trials comparing doxorubicin-based combination versus doxorubicin single-agent chemotherapy were reviewed. Response rates and overall survival were evaluated using pooled statistical analysis.The pooled response data in 2281 patients showed a slight trend favouring the combination therapy, although this did not reach statistical significance (odds ratio (OR), 0.79; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.60-1.05; p=0.10). Survival data could only be abstracted from six studies involving 2097 patients, and showed no significant advantage for combination therapy (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.67-1.06; p=0.13). Data on adverse effects could not be combined in a meta-analysis; however nausea, vomiting and myelosuppression were consistently more severe with combination chemotherapy than with single-agent chemotherapy.Discussion. Single-agent doxorubicin is an appropriate first-line chemotherapy option for advanced or metastatic soft-tissue sarcoma. Some doxorubicin-based combination chemotherapy regimens, given in conventional doses, produce only marginal increases in response rates, at the expense of increased adverse effects, and with no improvements in overall survival. Future randomized clinical trials should compare new regimens, whose activity has been established in single-arm studies, with single-agent doxorubicin, and include quality of life as an outcome measure.

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 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)0.000
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: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.732
Threshold uncertainty score0.961

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.405
Teacher spread0.344 · 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