Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Oesophageal Cancer: A Meta-Analysis and Experience from the Shanghai Cancer Hospital
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
Whether adjuvant chemotherapy increases survival of oesophageal cancer patients has been widely debated. The present study used meta-analysis software to combine data from six studies up to July 2007 that were found and selected as suitable, comprising a total of 1001 oesophageal cancer patients. The results indicated that adjuvant chemotherapy did not significantly improve outcome in oesophageal cancer patients. A trend towards improved outcome from adjuvant chemotherapy was found in lymph node-positive patients, but did not reach significance. In our own study including 270 oesophageal cancer patients, adjuvant chemotherapy did not improve overall patient survival, but did improve survival for patients with metastases in cervical and/or celiac lymph nodes (stage IVa). Although our study had the largest patient sample, more prospective clinical trials with large numbers of patients are necessary to confirm the value of adjuvant chemotherapy in stage IVa patients.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 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