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 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.

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.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.070
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
Consensus categoriesResearch integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.160
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.070
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0020.004
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 head0.183
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