MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2126251787 · doi:10.1200/jco.2011.38.7571

Progression-Free Survival: Meaningful or Simply Measurable?

2012· editorial· en· W2126251787 on OpenAlexaff
Christopher M. Booth, Elizabeth A. Eisenhauer

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2012
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineProgression-free survivalOncologyRandomized controlled trialInternal medicineClinical endpointStandard of careOverall survivalTumor progressionIntensive care medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The last few years have seen an increase in the number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new agents in metastatic solid tumors using progression-free survival (PFS) as the primary end point. Some trials showing improvement in PFS, without a correspondingincreaseinoverallsurvival(OS),haveledtoapprovalofnew drugs and/or changes in standard of care. This suggests a growing belief in the oncology community that delaying progression in metastaticdiseaseisaworthygoal,evenifOSisnotimproved.Butisanew treatment that improves PFS really an advance for patients? Or is it only lowering the bar to declare active some of our much-heralded new molecular targeted therapies? We believe that as a community, this trend requires discussion and debate.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.023
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.093
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.023
Threshold uncertainty score0.122

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0230.093
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0040.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0030.006
Scholarly communication0.0080.007
Open science0.0040.001
Research integrity0.0170.035
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.004

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 head0.183
GPT teacher head0.522
Teacher spread0.338 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations320
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical OncologySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207