DI-037 Comparison of indirect treatment for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer: Abstract DI-037 Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background There have been no head to head clinical trials to compare the main alternatives available to first line metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). Purpose To assess the relative effectiveness of treatments that have demonstrably increased overall survival in mPC Materials and methods A search was performed in PubMed and selected Phase III trials with overall survival data in first-line mPC and drugs approved by the FDA or EMEA. Similarity among trials was assessed according patient selection criteria, study population and control group results. The effectiveness outcome selected was overall survival. A therapeutic equivalence interval was established: 0.75 to 1.33 using hazard ratio (HR) obtained for sample calculation of erlotinib/gemcitabine study. Therapeutic equivalence of treatments was determined according to a previous guideline for positioning of equivalent therapeutic alternative. Grades 3 or 4 neutropenia data were used to assess relative safety. Bucher’s method was used to adjust the therapeutic comparison and the application developed by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) to compare treatment indirectly (ITC). Results Three trials were selected: FOLFIRINOX, Albumin-bound paclitaxel (Nab) paclitaxel/gemcitabine and erlotinib/gemcitabine treatments compared with gemcitabine alone. They were similar for patient-selection criteria, study population and control group results. The results are summarised in the table: OS: overall survival HR: hazard ratio Conclusions FOLFIRINOX was more effective than erlotinib/gemcitabine. Erlotinib/gemcitabine and Nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine are not therapeutically equivalent to FOLFIRINOX. FOLFIRINOX resulted in less grade 3/4 neutropenia than Nab-paclitaxel/gemcitabine. No conflict of interest.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.066 | 0.004 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".