DI-037 Comparison of indirect treatment for first-line metastatic pancreatic cancer: Abstract DI-037 Table 1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background</h3> There have been no head to head clinical trials to compare the main alternatives available to first line metastatic pancreatic cancer (mPC). <h3>Purpose</h3> To assess the relative effectiveness of treatments that have demonstrably increased overall survival in mPC <h3>Materials and methods</h3> 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). <h3>Results</h3> 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 <h3>Conclusions</h3> 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 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".