Efficacy of Bisphosphonates in the Management of Skeletal Complications of Bone Metastases and Selection of Clinical Endpoints
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bisphosphonates are the current standard of palliative care for patients with bone lesions from breast cancer and multiple myeloma. This article discusses the selection of endpoints and statistical methods used to assess clinical efficacy of bisphosphonate therapies in patients with bone metastases. Recent studies of pamidronate and zoledronic acid have set the standards for the design and conduct of multicenter, randomized, placebo-controlled trials to assess the clinical benefit of bisphosphonates in patients with bone metastases. Studies of zoledronic acid have demonstrated objective, significant, and enduring benefits in patients with a broad range of primary cancers, including prostate cancer, using robust clinical endpoints. Other bisphosphonates, including clodronate, have been investigated for the treatment of bone metastases, but these studies have been relatively small. This review first considers issues of trial design and analysis, with particular emphasis on the statistical requirements for the rigorous analysis of multiple events occurring in the same patient, and then reviews the results of bisphosphonate trials in patients with breast or prostate cancers metastatic to bone in the light of these statistical considerations.
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 | 0.007 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 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".