MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Clinical benefit of zoledronic acid for the prevention of skeletal complications in patients with prostate cancer based on history of skeletal complications

2004· article· en· W2600681548 on OpenAlexaff
J.L. Chin, Fred Saad, Donald M. Gleason, Robin Murray, Simon Tchekmedyian, P. Venner, Louis Lacombe, J. Vinholes, Ming Zheng, Y.J. Hei

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Oncology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsInstitute for Research in Immunology and Cancer
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboZoledronic acidProstate cancerHazard ratioInternal medicineSurgeryUrologyCancerPathologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

4576 Background: We previously reported the efficacy and safety of 4 mg zoledronic acid (Zol) at 15 mo compared with placebo in patients with bone metastases from prostate cancer (Saad et al. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2002;94:1458–1468). We report here the results of a retrospective analysis performed to determine the clinical benefit of Zol in men with prostate cancer based on patients' history of skeletal complications before study entry. Methods: Data were analyzed for patients treated with 4 mg Zol or placebo every 3–4 weeks for 24 months. Patients were retrospectively stratified according to history of a skeletal-related event (SRE) before study entry. Results: Of 422 patients randomized to 4 mg Zol or placebo, 147 completed the 15-month study and 133 elected to enter 9-month extension. Approximately one third of patients had an SRE before study entry. In the placebo group, 51% of patients with a history of an SRE developed an on-study SRE vs 47% of patients without an SRE before study entry. Regardless of SRE history, Zol treatment reduced skeletal morbidity compared with placebo. Multiple event analysis demonstrated that among patients with an SRE before study entry, the risk of developing an SRE was reduced by 40% for patients treated with Zol 4 mg vs placebo (hazard ratio = 0.603; P = .028). For patients without an SRE before study entry, the risk of developing an on-study SRE was also reduced (33%) relative to placebo (hazard ratio = 0.670; P = .027). In the placebo group, median time to first SRE appeared to be shorter for patients with a prior SRE vs no prior SRE. However, in both stratification groups Zol 4 mg extended median time to first SRE relative to placebo (361 days vs 258 days for placebo in patients with a prior SRE and 499 days vs 337 days for placebo in patients without a prior SRE; P = .066 and .065, respectively). Conclusions: This exploratory analysis suggests that Zol provides clinical benefit in patients with advanced prostate cancer and bone metastases independent of their prior history of skeletal complications. Author Disclosure Employment or Leadership Consultant or Advisory Stock Ownership Honoraria Research Funding Expert Testimony Other Remuneration Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.464
Teacher spread0.363 · 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 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
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical Oncology→Same topicBone health and treatments→French-language works237,207→