MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164358237 · doi:10.1158/1078-0432.ccr-13-1222

Phase III Trials of Targeted Anticancer Therapies: Redesigning the Concept

2013· review· en· W2164358237 on OpenAlex

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

VenueClinical Cancer Research · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMathematics
TopicStatistical Methods in Clinical Trials
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineDrug developmentIntensive care medicinePhases of clinical researchCancerClinical endpointDrugClinical study designAnticancer drugDrug trialStandard of careRandomized controlled trialOncologyPharmacologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Randomized phase III trials provide the gold-standard evidence for the approval of new drugs: an experimental treatment is compared with the current standard of care to identify clinically relevant differences in a predefined endpoint. However, there are several problems relating to the current role of phase III trials in drug development including the limited clinical benefit observed for some approved agents, the necessity for large trials to detect these differences, the inability of such trials to identify rare but important toxicities, and high cost. The design of phase III trials evaluating drug combinations, and those including biomarkers, presents additional challenges. Here, we review these problems and suggest that phase III trials with adaptive designs in selected prescreened populations could reduce these limitations.

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)0.164
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.574
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies, Research integrity, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesMetaresearch, Research integrity
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.906
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.1640.574
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0140.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.005
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0030.001
Research integrity0.0020.006
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0130.000

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 head0.969
GPT teacher head0.808
Teacher spread0.161 · 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