Can Canada sustain paediatric phase I trials? A national survey of cancer relapse in children.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Paediatric phase I trials are critical to the evaluation of new agents using standardized methodology. However a large proportion of paediatric patients in Canada do not have access to phase I therapy. OBJECTIVES: A National Paediatric Cancer Relapse Survey was conducted to collect preliminary data to evaluate the feasibility of multi-centre paediatric phase I trials within Canada. METHODS: A survey consisting of 20 individual questions was sent out to all of the 17 paediatric oncology centres in Canada. RESULTS: Fifteen centres (88%) responded to the survey. 1027 children are diagnosed with cancer each year in Canada while 241 present with recurrent cancer. Of the 85 patients who are considered to be eligible for phase I study each year, only 53% were referred for phase I therapy. Two centres have more than 10 eligible patients a year, while the remaining 13 centres have less than 10 eligible patients each year. CONCLUSIONS: We estimate that 20% of the eligible patients could be accrued to phase I trials and Canada may provide sufficient patient number, i.e. 25 to 30 solid tumour patients every 2 years, to allow one multi-centre paediatric phase I trial to be completed over a 2-year period.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".