[Retrospective analysis on efficacy and toxicity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and l-leucovorin (l-LV) in advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer].
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) and l-leucovorin (I-LV) in 50 patients with advanced or recurrent colorectal cancer in our institute. The dose of 5-FU was 600 mg/m2 and the dose of l-LV was 250 mg/m2. Objective response were 36.8% of patients who had administration of full-dose and 14.8% of patients who had the administration of reduced dose or prolonged interval. No significant difference was observed in clinical benefit rates between patients administrated in full-dose and patients in reduced dose or prolonged interval. Median survival time (MST) of patients in reduced dose or prolonged interval is longer than patients in full-dose. These data suggest that 5-FU/l-LV can be given in the outpatient and yields improved prognosis and minimal adverse reactions even in patients in reduced dose or prolonged interval.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".