MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2122572242 · doi:10.1002/pros.22861

Retreatment of men with metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer with abiraterone

2014· article· en· W2122572242 on OpenAlexaff
Raya Leibowitz‐Amit, Nimira Alimohamed, Francisco Vera-Badillo, Jo-An Seah, Arnoud J. Templeton, Jennifer J. Knox, Ian F. Tannock, Srikala S. Sridhar, Anthony M. Joshua

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Prostate · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAbirateroneMedicineProstate cancerProstateOncologyInternal medicineProstate diseaseAbiraterone acetateCancerAndrogen deprivation therapyAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Abiraterone acetate (AA), oral CYP17 inhibitor, is an active agent in the treatment of metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). METHODS: We (R.L.A and N.A) retrospectively evaluated outcome in 12 men who were re-treated with AA following prior treatment with AA at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. RESULTS: All men were heavily pre-treated for mCRPC with a median of four prior lines of therapy, one of which was AA (given either pre- or post-chemotherapy). Eleven out of 12 (92%) men stopped their first treatment course of AA due to progression and one stopped for financial reasons. Seven men had a PSA decrease ≥50% following their first AA treatment, of which three (46%) had a PSA decrease ≥50% to AA re-treatment. The responses to AA re-treatment were generally short-lived with a median biochemical progression-free survival of 2.3 months and median treatment duration of 3.2 months. No PSA responses to AA re-treatment were seen in five men who did not have an initial PSA response to AA. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest that AA re-challenge may have limited benefit in select men with mCRPC, and warrants further formal research.

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)0.000
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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.391
Threshold uncertainty score0.532

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.295
Teacher spread0.274 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe ProstateSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207