Locally advanced adenocarcinoma and adenosquamous carcinoma of the cervix compared to squamous cell carcinoma of the cervix in Gynecologic Oncology Group trials of chemoradiation.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
5530 Background: Conflicting results have been reported for adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas the cervix with respect to their response to therapy and prognosis. Adeno- and adenosquamous carcinoma comprise the majority of non-squamous carcinomas of the cervix enrolled in GOG trials of chemoradiation. Methods: Adeno- and adenosquamous cervical carcinomas were retrospectively studied and compared to squamous cell carcinomas in GOG trials of chemoradiation. Results: Among 1672 patients enrolled in clinical trials of chemoradiation, 182 adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas were identified (10.8%). A higher percentage of adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas were stage IB (27% versus 20%) and fewer were stage IIIB (21.4% versus 28.6%). The mean tumor size was larger for squamous than adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas, but adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas were more often poorly differentiated (46.2% versus 26.8%). Among patients that received cis-platinum during radiation therapy, 843 with squamous cell carcinoma were compared to 112 with adeno- or adenosquamous carcinoma for overall survival, with no significant difference in risk of death (p=0.472). However, among patients that did not receive cis-platinum, 647 with squamous cell carcinoma and 70 with adeno- or adenosquamous carcinoma, there was a slightly higher risk of death for the adeno- or adenosquamous group (p=0.049). Adverse effects to treatment were similar across histologies. Conclusions: Patients with adeno- and adenosquamous carcinomas of the cervix have worse overall survival when treated with radiation alone, but have progression-free and overall survival similar to patients with squamous cell carcinomas of the cervix when treated with cis-platinum based chemoradiation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".