Standards of care for treatment of recurrent glioblastoma—are we there yet?
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
Newly diagnosed glioblastoma is now commonly treated with surgery, if feasible, or biopsy, followed by radiation plus concomitant and adjuvant temozolomide. The treatment of recurrent glioblastoma continues to be a moving target as new therapeutic principles enrich the standards of care for newly diagnosed disease. We reviewed PubMed and American Society of Clinical Oncology abstracts from January 2006 to January 2012 to identify clinical trials investigating the treatment of recurrent or progressive glioblastoma with nitrosoureas, temozolomide, bevacizumab, and/or combinations of these agents. At recurrence, a minority of patients are eligible for second surgery or reirradiation, based on appropriate patient selection. In temozolomide-pretreated patients, progression-free survival rates at 6 months of 20%-30% may be achieved either with nitrosoureas, temozolomide in various dosing regimens, or bevacizumab. Combination regimens among these agents or with other drugs have not produced evidence for superior activity but commonly produce more toxicity. More research is needed to better define patient profiles that predict benefit from the limited therapeutic options available after the current standard of care has failed.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 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