Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pancreatic cancer remains one of our greatest clinical challenges. In the last 5 years we have witnessed the introduction of new agents into our armamentarium, which has fortunately translated into incremental improvements in overall survival. We have level 1 evidence for the use of FOLFIRINOX and nab-paclitaxel in the first-line setting; however, the generalizability of randomized studies in the second-line setting has been less compelling. The use of oxaliplatin and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) post-gemcitabine progression was shown to improve survival in the CONKO-003 trial but failed to do so in the PANCREOX trial. Nano-liposomal irinotecan in combination with 5FU in pre-treated patients yielded an improved survival in the NAPOLI-1 trial, presenting an option in this setting. However, these trials were largely conducted in an era of first-line gemcitabine monotherapy, which is no longer a standard practice. Better evidence with contemporary first-line regimens is needed in order to define the optimal post-progression strategy in advanced pancreatic cancer.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".