MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2161676909 · doi:10.3747/co.19.949

Response to Second-Line Erlotinib in an EGFR Mutation-Negative Patient with Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: Make No Assumptions

2012· article· en· W2161676909 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Irene Karam, B. Melosky

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsErlotinibMedicineEpidermal growth factor receptorLung cancerOncologyEGFR inhibitorsMutationTyrosine-kinase inhibitorInternal medicineCancer researchErlotinib HydrochlorideBiomarkerTyrosine kinaseGefitinibCancerGeneReceptorBiologyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Erlotinib-an oral tyrosine kinase inhibitor (tki) of the epidermal growth factor receptor (egfr)-has commonly been used as a therapeutic option in metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer (nsclc) patients in the second- or third-line treatment setting. A mutation in the EGFR gene (EGFR M+) confers an increased response to this class of drugs. In the first-line setting, use of tkis is restricted to patients having a mutation. The importance of this biomarker has been questioned in subsequent treatment lines.Here, we report a case showing a positive response to erlotinib treatment in the second-line setting. The patient, an elderly male smoker with stage iv nsclc, had a tumour that was EGFR mutation-negative (wild-type EGFR). Based on this clinical case, we discuss the controversy concerning the need for, and impact of, testing for EGFR mutation after first-line treatment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Case report · Consensus signal: Case report
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.016

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0050.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.001

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 head0.049
GPT teacher head0.424
Teacher spread0.375 · 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 designCase report
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations6
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207