MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2342006085 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/nov205.10

ATNT-10DOES VALPROIC ACID IMPROVE SURVIVAL IN GLIOBLASTOMA? A META-ANALYSIS OF RANDOMIZED TRIALS IN NEWLY DIAGNOSED GLIOBLASTOMA

2015· article· en· W2342006085 on OpenAlexaff
Caroline Happold, Thierry Gorlia, Olivier Chinot, Mark R. Gilbert, Burt Nabors, Wolfgang Wick, Stephanie L. Pugh, Monika E. Hegi, Timothy F. Cloughesy, Patrick Roth, David A. Reardon, James Perry, Minesh P. Mehta, Roger Stupp, Michael Weller

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicHistone Deacetylase Inhibitors Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreUniversity of TorontoSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTemozolomideMedicineInternal medicineHazard ratioOncologyValproic AcidProgression-free survivalChemoradiotherapyPost-hoc analysisConfidence intervalCancerEpilepsyOverall survivalChemotherapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several small uncontrolled retrospective case series as well as a post-hoc analysis of the registration trial for temozolomide in newly diagnosed glioblastoma (Weller et al., 2011) have indicated an association between valproic acid (VPA) use and improved outcome in patients with newly diagnosed glioblastoma. To confirm the hypothesis generated based on the analysis of the temozolomide registration trial, we performed a combined analysis of a survival association of AED use at the start of chemoradiotherapy with temozolomide in the pooled patient cohort (n = 1869) of four contemporary randomized clinical trials in newly diagnosed glioblastoma: AVAGlio (NCT00943826), RTOG-0825 (NCT00884741), CENTRIC (NCT00689221) and CORE (NCT00813943). Progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were compared between (i) VPA versus no AED, (ii) VPA versus enzyme-inducing (EI)-AED, or (iii) VPA versus other non-EI-AED (without VPA). Results of Cox regression models stratified by trial and adjusted baseline prognostic factors including O6-methylguanine DNA methyltransferase (MGMT) promoter methylation status were interpreted. The same analyses were performed with levetiracetam (LEV). VPA use at the start of chemoradiotherapy was not associated with improved PFS or OS compared with patients receiving no AED (PFS: hazard ratio (HR) = 0.92, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.75-1.13, p = 0.41; OS: HR = 1.00, 95% CI 0.80-1.25, p = 0.95), EI-AED (PFS: HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.74-1.21, p = 0.62; OS: HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.0.77-1.33, p = 0.93) or non-EI-AED (PFS: HR = 1.02, 95% CI 0.80-1.3, p = 0.92; OS: HR = 1.06, 95% CI 0.83-1.35, p = 0.67). Similarly, no association with outcome was seen for LEV use. This pooled analysis did not validate an association of VPA or LEV use with improved survival, challenging the need for a full phase III trial exploring the repurposing of VPA or LEV as add-on to the standard of care treatment of newly diagnosed glioblastoma.

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 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)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.080

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.032
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.066
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.297 · 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

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicHistone Deacetylase Inhibitors ResearchFrench-language works237,207