Bibliographic record
Abstract
Should adjuvant chemotherapy for resected non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) be the standard of care? That question has been much debated since the presentation of results from the International Adjuvant Lung Cancer Trial (IALT) in May 2003 at the plenary session of the American Society of Clinical Oncology annual meeting. The IALT study showed a statistically significant survival advantage for patients treated with cisplatin-based adjuvant chemotherapy. The topic of adjuvant chemotherapy permeated the Tenth World Conference on Lung Cancer held from August 10-14, 2003 in Vancouver, Canada. Updated results of the IALT study were presented along with results from the Big Lung Trial from the United Kingdom and the Adjuvant Lung Project Italy trial, neither of which showed a significant survival benefit for adjuvant chemotherapy. How to put the IALT data into practice remains controversial, and leading lung cancer experts have not reached a consensus. Platinum-based doublets that include a taxane, vinorelbine, or gemcitabine remain the standard of care for the first-line treatment of metastatic NSCLC. However, there may soon be a new option for second-line treatment. A randomized study of pemetrexed in the second-line setting found efficacy similar to that of docetaxel given every 3 weeks, with less toxicity. Gefitinib was recently approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for the treatment of advanced NSCLC following platinum-based chemotherapy and docetaxel. However, concerns have arisen about toxicity due to reports of interstitial pneumonitis from Japan. The observed incidence of interstitial pneumonitis from the data available to date is approximately 1%. Which patients derive the most benefit from gefitinib? It appears that lifetime nonsmokers and patients with bronchioloalveolar histology have the highest probability of disease response.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".