MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Targeted therapy in colorectal carcinoma: more than a theory

2008· review· en· W2160701593 on OpenAlex
L. Pickering, Sarah Rudman, Paul J. Ross, Myles Leslie

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueColorectal Disease · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal Cancer Treatments and Studies
Canadian institutionsSt. Thomas Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineColorectal cancerTargeted therapyClinical trialOncologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this review was to examine clinical trial data reporting the use of targeted therapies in colorectal cancer. METHOD: Candidate trials were identified by a comprehensive literature search. RESULTS: The data on the use of targeted therapies; usually combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of colorectal cancer is accumulating rapidly. These new agents will increasingly become incorporated into standard treatment schedules. CONCLUSION: Targeted therapy has moved rapidly from the laboratory to the clinic and is opening up potentially new and exciting areas for the development of the systemic treatment of colorectal 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.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.948
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.325
Teacher spread0.291 · 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