MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2140207145 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2011.557657

The role of bevacizumab in colorectal cancer: understanding its benefits and limitations

2011· review· en· W2140207145 on OpenAlexaff
Karen Mulder, Andrew Scarfe, Neil Chua, Jennifer L. Spratlin

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Alberta
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBevacizumabColorectal cancerMedicineOncologyClinical trialAngiogenesisCancerExpert opinionAdjuvantInternal medicineBioinformaticsIntensive care medicineChemotherapyBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Angiogenesis is a key factor in the development of aberrant blood vessels required for malignant growth, invasion and progression. Inhibiting VEGF is by far the most clinically advanced anti-angiogenic target. Bevacizumab (BV), the only humanized mAb directed against VEGF, is approved for use in multiple tumor types after successful clinical trial results demonstrated benefits in progression-free survival and/or overall survival when combined with common cytotoxic chemotherapies. AREAS COVERED: The review focuses on the use of BV in colorectal cancer, discusses the clinical trial data supporting its increasing use and explores its limitations. Readers will gain a succinct description of the trial data demonstrating a modest survival benefit in metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) and the lack of benefit of BV when utilized in the adjuvant setting. A review of common BV toxicities and a discussion about possible BV resistance mechanisms are also provided. EXPERT OPINION: Although BV has demonstrated efficacy in mCRC, there is an urgent need to improve the understanding of its mechanism of action and the development of BV resistance. Furthermore, there is a need for delineating predictive markers of BV efficacy and toxicity.

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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.993
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 head0.354
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.054 · 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 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

Citations34
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicColorectal Cancer Treatments and StudiesFrench-language works237,207