Effectiveness of adjuvant temozolomide treatment in patients with glioblastoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine whether adjuvant temozolomide treatment improved glioblastoma patients` survival in a large Canadian cohort. METHODS: We retrospectively studied 364 glioblastoma patients who received different modalities of treatment in 2 Canadian tertiary care centers in Edmonton and Halifax, Canada, between January 2000 and December 2006. The primary outcome was survival following the treatment protocol. RESULTS: The following variables were associated with an increased risk of death: The hazard risk (HR) of on-gross total resection was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.39-0.64). The HR for the surgery-only group was 5.2 (95% CI: 3.85-7.06). The standard treatment group (surgery, radiation therapy [RT], and temozolomide) had an HR of 0.52 (95% CI: 0.37-0.74). The HR for patients who presented with seizure or whose presentation included seizures was 0.88 (95% CI: 0.55-0.89). Patient entry into trials had an HR of 0.74 (95% CI: 0.57-0.96). Finally, the HR for age was 1.02 (95% CI: 1.01-1.03) for every extra year. CONCLUSION: Concomitant temozolomide with RT and surgery was associated with longer survival compared with RT with surgery alone. We also found that younger age, surgical resection, seizure presence, and entry into trials are important prognostic factors for longer survival.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".