MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2569340395 · doi:10.5539/cco.v6n1p25

Antineoplastons A10 and AS2-1 in the Treatment of Children with Optic Pathway Glioma: Final Report for Protocol BT-23

2017· article· en· W2569340395 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Stanisław R. Burzyński, Tomasz J. Janicki, Gregory S. Burzynski

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer and Clinical Oncology · 2017
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicNeuroblastoma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAdverse effectIncidence (geometry)HypokalemiaSomnolenceSurgeryPopulationToxicityInternal medicineGliomaGastroenterology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Protocol BT-23, a Phase II study, was performed to determine the efficacy and safety of combination Antineoplaston A10 and Antineoplaston AS2-1 (ANP) in children with an optic pathway glioma (OPG). Sixteen patients (12 males, 4 females) ages 1 to 16 years (median age 4.5 years) were treated. The patients received ANP, by intravenous infusion, six times daily (i.e., every four hours). The length of treatment extended from a minimum of 4.1 weeks to a maximum of 210.0 weeks. The median dosage of A10 was 8.07 g/kg/d while for AS2-1 itwas 0.39 g/kg/d.Patients’ best response to ANP was determined: 12.5% of this patient population achieved a complete response, 18.8% achieved a partial response, and 31.3% maintained stable disease. The median overall survival was 78.5 months (95% CI: 37.6-92.3) while median progression-free survival was 45.4 months (95% CI: 7.1-71.4). ANPwas associated with a12% incidence of Grade 3 and a12% incidence of Grade 4 adverse drug experiences (ADEs). There were no Grade 5 ADEs. Grade 3 ADEs included somnolence and elevated SGOT; Grade 4 ADEsincluded hypernatremia and hypokalemia. Long-term quality of life was excellent with no chronic toxicity identified. Children with an OPG respond very well to ANP with good efficacy and toxicity profiles.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.102
Threshold uncertainty score0.216

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.118
GPT teacher head0.499
Teacher spread0.380 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations5
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCancer and Clinical OncologySame topicNeuroblastoma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207