Concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy for cervical cancer.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare the results obtained following treatment, from a group of patients with locally advanced cervical cancer (Stage IB or higher) treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy in relation to a group of patients treated exclusively with radiotherapy. MATERIAL AND METHOD: All patients treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy at the Gynaecologic Oncology Unit of the University Hospital Materno Infantil of the Canaries between 1999 and 2000, both inclusive, were included. The first group to be considered was formed by patients who received combined treatment. The second group of patients received radiotherapy exclusively, having been treated in previous years (1997-1998 period). The results were compared in relation to survival in the two following years from treatment (2000-2001) in the group of combined treatment and years 1999-2000 in the group that received only radiotherapy. To compare the survival of both groups the chi-square test and Odds Ratio were utilised. RESULTS: The groups compared are homogeneous when looking at the stage of the disease when diagnosed, the histological type of tumour and its degree of cellular differentiation, the CAT results and tumoral markers. Survival of more than two years was observed in the group treated with concurrent chemotherapy and radiotherapy in relation to the group treated exclusively with radiotherapy; chi-square 9.92, p < 0.01, OR: 0.1 (0.01-0.6).
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".