Progress for resectable cancer?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: : Pancreatic adenocarcinoma is a deadly disease; however, recent studies have suggested improved outcomes in patients with locoregional cancer. Progress was evaluated at a national level in resected patients, as measured by the proportion who received guideline-directed treatment and trends in survival. METHODS: : The linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results and Medicare databases were queried to identify resections for pancreatic adenocarcinoma performed between 1991 and 2002. Receipt and timing of chemotherapy and radiation with respect to time-trend were assessed. Using logistic regression, factors associated with adjuvant combination chemoradiotherapy were identified. Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by year and treatment were used to assess survival. RESULTS: : Of the 1910 patients, 47.9% (n = 915) received some form of adjuvant therapy within the first 6 months postoperatively; 34.4% (n = 658) received combination chemoradiotherapy (chemoRT). ChemoRT demonstrated a significant increase, from 29.2% to 37.5% (P < .0001). Neoadjuvant therapy was used in 5.7% (n = 108) of patients; no trend was observed during the study (P = .1275). The in-hospital mortality rate was 8.0% (n = 153 patients); no significant trend was noted (P = .3116). Kaplan-Meier survival, stratified by year group of diagnosis, did not change significantly over time (log-rank test, P = .4381), even with comparisons of the first 3 years with the last 3 years of the study (log-rank test, P = .3579). CONCLUSIONS: : Adherence to guideline-directed care isimproving in the United States; however, the pace is slow, and overall survival has yet to be impacted significantly. Both increased use of adjuvant therapy and the development of more promising systemic treatments are necessary to improve survival for patients with resectable pancreatic cancer. Cancer 2010. (c) 2010 American Cancer Society.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.019 | 0.004 |
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".