Updated analysis of NCIC CTG MA.17 (letrozole vs. placebo to letrozole vs placebo) post unblinding
Bibliographic record
Abstract
550 Background: 5187 postmenopausal women were originally randomized to NCIC CTG MA.17 to receive letrozole (LET) or placebo (PLAC) after 5 years of tamoxifen. The hazard ratio (HR) for disease-free survival (DFS) was 0.58 (0.450.76, p=0.00004) after a median follow-up of 30 months (mo). The trial was unblinded in October 2003 after the first interim analysis. Women randomized to PLAC were offered LET at the time of unblinding. The goal of this analysis was to determine whether women switching from PLAC to LET benefit in terms of disease outcome and to evaluate treatment related toxicities. Methods: LET and PLAC-LET have been compared to PLAC, based on the hazard ratio and adjusting for baseline patient and disease variables including, among others, tumor size, nodal status and prior adjuvant chemotherapy. Results: Information about their follow-up treatment after unblinding was available on 2268 women originally assigned to PLAC and who were free of recurrence and alive at the time of unblinding. Among them, 1655 crossed over from PLAC to LET while 613 elected no treatment. With 54 mo f/up the HR for DFS was 0.31 (0.18, 0.55: p<0.0001) favoring patients who crossed over to LET compared to those who stayed on no treatment. The treatment switch was well tolerated with no significant difference in bone fractures or cardiovascular events. An updated analysis of DFS, DDFS and OS by nodal and tumor receptor status, prior chemotherapy, menopausal status at the start of tamoxifen, and duration of prior tamoxifen therapy will be presented at the meeting. Conclusion: Women with hormone dependent breast cancer prescribed LET after a prolonged delay from completing tamoxifen experienced a significant improvement in outcome (DFS, DDFS, OS) and should be considered for this therapy. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.025 | 0.063 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
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.
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".