MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128284305 · doi:10.2174/157488708784223880

Combined Modality Treatment of Limited Stage Small Cell Carcinoma of the Lung

2008· review· en· W2128284305 on OpenAlexaff
Don Yee, Brita Danielson, Wilson Roa

Bibliographic record

VenueReviews on Recent Clinical Trials · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRadiation therapyEtoposideLung cancerOncologyChemotherapyChemoradiotherapyProphylactic cranial irradiationSmall-cell carcinomaSmall Cell Lung CarcinomaStage (stratigraphy)RegimenInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Small cell lung carcinoma comprises approximately 10-20% of all lung cancers. At the time of diagnosis, 20-30% of patients have what is considered limited stage disease. Historically, chemotherapy has been the mainstay of treatment for small cell lung cancer, but more recent evidence from large meta-analyses have established the local control and overall survival advantages conferred by the addition of external beam thoracic radiotherapy in combination with chemotherapy for limited stage disease along with prophylactic cranial irradiation for complete responders. At present, radiotherapy is recommended to commence in concurrentoe with an earlier cycle of chemotherapy. Despite the established role of thoracic radiotherapy combined with chemotherapy for patients with limited stage disease, the optimal radiotherapy dose-fractionation schedule is still undefined. Recent investigational radiotherapy approaches applied to limited stage small cell lung cancer patients include hyperfractionated radiotherapy, dose-escalated daily radiotherapy, and hypofractionation. While several chemotherapy regimens and targeted systemic agents have been investigated in small numbers of small cell lung cancer patients, cisplatin with etoposide remains the current standard chemotherapy regimen for this cancer.

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)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.026
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Meta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.946
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.026
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0190.008
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.696
GPT teacher head0.592
Teacher spread0.104 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations1
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueReviews on Recent Clinical TrialsSame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207