MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2588958064 · doi:10.1093/neuonc/now212.074

ATIM-09. SUCCESSFUL EXPERIENCE WITH CLINICAL TRIALS FOR HIGH GRADE GLIOMA IN A COMMUNITY SETTING

2016· article· en· W2588958064 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Lars Anker, Lavinia Dobrea, Joy Nakhla, Viorela Pop, Lawrence D. Wagman

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuro-Oncology · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicGlioma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsClinical trialMedicineInternal medicineCancerClinical researchOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The majority of cancer patients in America are treated in community hospitals and prefer to be treated within a familiar setting, yet most clinical trials are conducted at university medical centers. This report demonstrates that clinical trials for brain tumors can be successfully carried out at a comprehensive community cancer center. Our multidisciplinary neuro-oncology program was established in 2010. All high grade glioma patients are discussed at treatment conferences and considered for clinical trials. Patients have access to studies in partnership with NCI cooperative groups, industry sponsored and investigator initiated trials. To facilitate further research, biospecimens from clinical trial participants are acquired within our tissue bank. Nationally, 20% of adults with cancer qualify for a clinical trial, yet only 3–5% consent. Over the last 4 years, we evaluated 58 patients for 8 different high grade glioma treatment trials, with 50% consenting (29/58). Of 19 patients who received at least one dose of study agent, 79% (15/19) completed treatment. Nationally, 30% of patients drop out of a clinical trial, whereas our voluntary withdrawal rate was only 3%. We had a 100% success rate in harvesting specimens for an autologous vaccine trial (DCVax®-L). Upcoming trials include an anti-angiogenic adenoviral vector (GLOBE), a purified retroviral replicating vector (TOCA5), and radiosurgery combined with tumor treatment field (TTF) therapy (METIS). Our experience demonstrates that clinical trials can successfully be carried out in a comprehensive community cancer center. Acquisition of complex neuro-oncology trials, high patient enrollment and retention, effective study management and reporting of quality data indicate our strong overall trial performance. Therefore, research centers in community hospitals can contribute their patient population to the success of multicenter clinical trials. Our patients are retained and enroll locally with minimal financial and travel burden, maintaining personalized care from their existing medical team.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.025
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.025
Threshold uncertainty score0.134

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0250.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0060.003

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 head0.138
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuro-OncologySame topicGlioma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207