Combination Chemotherapy in Advanced Pancreatic Cancer: Time to Raise the White Flag?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gemcitabine has been the standard palliative chemotherapy in advanced pancreatic cancer since 1997; this standard was established by a phase III trial that randomly assigned 126 symptomatic patients with advanced pancreatic cancer to either gemcitabine or fluorouracil (FU). 1 Treatment with gemcitabine versus FU was associated with improvements in 1-year survival (18% v 2%, respectively) and clinical benefit response (24% v 5%, respectively). Subsequently, thousands of patients have participated in large phaseIIItrialscomparinggemcitabinealonewithgemcitabineplus a second cytotoxic agent. 2-5 In the current issue, Herrmann et al 6 present another such study, comparing gemcitabine plus capecitabine with gemcitabine alone in advanced disease. The trial by Herrmann et al 6 is of high quality and was based on evidence from earlier phase studies that suggested the combination had sufficient activity to warrant further testing. 7,8 Similar to all prior studies
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.015 | 0.015 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".