Management of advanced or recurrent cervical cancer: chemotherapy and beyond
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Metastatic or recurrent cervical cancer has a survival duration of approximately 12 months. Thus, we review the outcomes of chemotherapy and/or novel agents for women who present in this situation. Included were studies in women with advanced or recurrent cervical cancer where at least response rate, survival or toxicity were reported. Platinum alone chemotherapy at 50 mg/m(2) is superior to other single-agent platinum or nonplatinum regimens in terms of efficacy and toxicity profile. Platinum with either paclitaxel, gemcitibine, topotecan or vinorelbine has equivalent efficacy but differ with respect to toxicity profile and convenience of treatment regimen. Bevacizumab in addition to combination chemotherapy provides a duration of survival that is 3.7 months longer than that provided by combination chemotherapy alone. EGF receptor (EGFR) tyrosine kinase inhibitor agents did not provide promising efficacy. Bevacizumab in addition to combination chemotherapy provides superior efficacy with acceptable toxicity. Evaluation of other novel targeted antiangiogenic agents, either alone or in combination with chemotherapy is ongoing.
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 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.002 | 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 it