MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

EGFR Mutations and Lung Cancer

2011· review· en· W2154969724 on OpenAlexaff
Gilda da Cunha Santos, Frances A. Shepherd, Ming‐Sound Tsao

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of Disease · 2011
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEpidermal growth factor receptorTyrosine kinaseProtein kinase domainCancer researchLung cancerMutationMedicineReceptor tyrosine kinaseKinaseTargeted therapyMutantEGFR inhibitorsCancerBiologyOncologyInternal medicineGeneReceptorCell biologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) is a transmembrane protein with cytoplasmic kinase activity that transduces important growth factor signaling from the extracellular milieu to the cell. Given that more than 60% of non-small cell lung carcinomas (NSCLCs) express EGFR, EGFR has become an important therapeutic target for the treatment of these tumors. Inhibitors that target the kinase domain of EGFR have been developed and are clinically active. More importantly, such tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) are especially effective in patients whose tumors harbor activating mutations in the tyrosine kinase domain of the EGFR gene. More recent trials have suggested that for advanced NSCLC patients with EGFR mutant tumors, initial therapy with a TKI instead of chemotherapy may be the best choice of treatment. Therefore, mutation testing is mandatory to identify these patients, given that selection based only on clinico-pathologic characteristics is inadequate. We review the role of EGFR mutations in the diagnosis and management of NSCLC.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.406
Teacher spread0.380 · 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
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

Citations970
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnual Review of Pathology Mechanisms of DiseaseSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207