MEMORANDUM FOR: Science Writers and Editors on the Journal Press List
Bibliographic record
Abstract
April 27, 2000 (EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE 4 P.M. EDT May 2) A combination of paclitaxel and cisplatin is the new “gold standard” for treating advanced ovarian cancer, according to the authors of a randomized trial comparing this combination with cyclophosphamide and cisplatin. Martine Piccart, M.D., of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC), with coauthors from the Nordic Gynecological Cancer Study Group (NOCOVA), the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group (NCI-C-CTG), and the Scottish Group, present the results of their unique trans-Atlantic clinical study in the May 3 issue of the Journal of the National Cancer Institute. An earlier trial conducted by the Gynecologic Oncology Group in the United States showed a better outcome for patients with advanced ovarian cancer on the paclitaxel–cisplatin regimen than for those on a standard cyclophosphamide–cisplatin regimen. The European and Canadian investigators conducted a confirmatory trial that included somewhat broader selection criteria than the earlier trial and administered paclitaxel as a 3-hour instead of a 24-hour infusion.
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 | 0.013 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".