MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2170957839 · doi:10.1586/14737140.6.8.1187

Temozolomide: a milestone in neuro-oncology and beyond?

2006· review· en· W2170957839 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Nicole Mutter, Roger Stupp

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Anticancer Therapy · 2006
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemozolomideMedicineInternal medicineOncologyChemotherapyCancerRadiation therapyGliomaClinical trialAnaplastic astrocytomaAstrocytomaCancer research

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Temozolomide (Temodal, Temodar), an imidazol derivative, is a second-generation alkylating agent. The orally available prodrug with the capacity of crossing the blood-brain barrier received accelerated US FDA approval in 1999. Three pivotal Phase II trials showed modest activity in the treatment of recurrent anaplastic astrocytoma glioblastoma. In 2005, the FDA and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products approved temozolomide for use in newly diagnosed glioblastoma, in conjunction with radiotherapy, based on an European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer/National Cancer Institute of Canada Phase III trial. The adverse events associated with temozolomide are mild-to-moderate and generally predictable; the most serious are noncumulative and reversible myelosuppression and, in particular, thrombocytopenia, which occurs in less than 5% of patients. Continuous temozolomide administration is associated with profound CD4-selective lymphocytopenia. Molecular studies have suggested that the benefit of temozolomide chemotherapy is restricted to patients whose tumors have a methylated methylguanine methyltransferase gene promotor and are thus unable to repair some of the chemotherapy-induced DNA damage. Temozolomide is under investigation for other disease entities, in particular lower-grade glioma, brain metastases and melanoma.

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

Direct model labels (unvalidated)

Per-model category and study-design labels from the labeling rounds. They are machine output, unvalidated, and the disagreement between models ships as data. No study design here is MEDLINE-validated yet.

Model armCategoriesStudy designConfidence
gemmano category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Not applicablelow
gptno category
Domain: not available · Genre: Review
About the Canadian research system: no · About a Canadian topic: no
Other designhigh
models splitAgreement compares identical category sets and study designs across arms.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.003
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.003

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.371 · 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

Labeled directly by 2 models reading the full record.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.

The models disagree on parts of this classification; every voice is preserved in the section at the end of the page.

Study designNot applicable · Other design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations101
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Anticancer TherapySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207