MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2358683438

Gemcitabine or gemcitabine plus cisplatin for in 42 patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer.

2002· article· en· W2358683438 on OpenAlexaff
Xingyuan Wang, Quanxing Ni, Maolin Jin, Zhaoshen Li, Yuxin Wu, Yu-pei Zhao, Feng-yi Feng

Bibliographic record

VenuePubMed · 2002
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsPancreas Centre (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGemcitabineMedicinePancreatic cancerInternal medicinePerformance statusCisplatinProgressive diseaseToxicityGastroenterologyChemotherapyUrologyCancer
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: A multi-center randomized phase III clinical trial was designed to evaluate the efficacy, clinical benefit response (CBR) and toxicity profile of germcitabine (GEM) or GEM plus cisplatin (CDDP) for locally advanced (LAPC) or metastatic pancreatic cancer (MPC). METHODS: From July 2000 to May 2001, 42 untreated patients with LAPC or MPC were collected and randomized into two groups: Arm A-GEM 20 patients and Arm B-GEM + CDDP 22 patients. Eligibility criteria were: cytologically and pathologically proven pancreatic carcinoma, Karnosky performance status (KPS) 60 - 80, age 18 - 75 yrs, adequate hematological, renal and liver function, measurable disease, and controllable pain. For Arm A patients, weekly dose of GEM 1 000 mg/m(2)/w for 7 times followed by a week rest. Then weekly GEM at the same dose for 3 times every 4 weeks. Arm B patients were given weekly dose of GEM 1 000 mg/m(2)/w for 3 times every 4 weeks combined with CDDP 60 mg/m(2) on D15 for 3 cycles. RESULTS: Thirty-four patients were available for objective response (Arm A 16 and Arm B 18) and 36 (Arm A 16 and Arm B 20) for CBR evaluation. In Arm A and Arm B, PR 1 (6.3%) and 2 (11%), MR 4 (25%) and 3 (16.7%), SD 7 (43.8%) and 8 (44.4%), PD 4 (25%) and 5 (27.8%), PR + MR 31.3% and 27.8%, PR + MR + SD 75% and 72.2% were observed. Positive CBR was 14/16 (87.5%) in Arm A and 14/20 (70.0%) in Arm B. The negative results was 2/16 (12.5%) in Arm A and 6/20 (30.0%) in Arm B. The median time of disease progression was not yet available at present. The 3-month survival rate of both Arm A and B was 100%, the 6-month survival rates of Arm A and B were 81.3% and 61.6% and the 12-month survival rates of Arm A and B was 31.3% and 11.1%, with median survivals of 273 and 217 days. The incidence of hematological and non-hematological toxicity of Arm A was lower than that of Arm B without statistical significance. The toxicity ranging from being mild to moderate was manageable. CONCLUSION: GEM or GEM plus CDDP is able to lead to a moderate objective response rate, also significantly improve the quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic pancreatic cancer patients, prolonging the survival time with tolerable toxicity.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.059
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.257 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations36
Published2002
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePubMedSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207