MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2750645423 · doi:10.3747/co.24.3561

Oral Chinese Herbal Medicine as Maintenance Treatment after Chemotherapy for Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

2017· review· en· W2750645423 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Q. Wang, Shuang Wang, Lijing Jiao, R.X. Zhang, Yucheng Zhong, J. Zhang, Luwei Xu

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Oncology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisHazard ratioCochrane LibraryLung cancerInternal medicineConfidence intervalPlaceboRelative riskQuality of life (healthcare)Randomized controlled trialSystematic reviewCancerMEDLINEOncologyAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The concept of maintenance therapy in cancer treatment is currently under debate because of modest survival benefits, added toxicity, economic considerations, and quality-of-life concerns. Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) is widely used in China for cancer patients, offering the advantages of low toxicity and enhancement of quality of life. However, no systematic reviews or meta-analyses have assessed the role of TCM as maintenance treatment for non-small-cell lung carcinoma. Methods: We searched the Chinese Biomedical Literature Database, the China National Knowledge Infrastructure, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library databases for all eligible studies. The endpoints were overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), the 1-year and 2-year survival rates, and performance status. Our meta-analysis used a fixed-effects model and a random-effects model for heterogeneity in the Stata software application (version 11.0: StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, U.S.A.), with the results expressed as hazard ratios (HRS) or risk ratios (RRS), with their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (95% CIS). Results: Sixteen randomized studies representing 1150 patients met the inclusion criteria. Compared with best supportive care, observation, or placebo, TCM as maintenance treatment was associated with a significant increase in OS (HR: 0.49; 95% CI: 0.35 to 0.68; p < 0.001), PFS (HR: 0.66; 95% CI: 0.51 to 0.84; p = 0.001), and 2-year survival rate (RR: 0.63; 95% CI: 0.44 to 0.92, p = 0.017), and a significant improvement in performance status (RR: 0.68; 95% CI: 0.61 to 0.75; p < 0.001). Conclusions: For patients who show non-progression—including stable disease, partial response, or complete response—after first-line chemotherapy, including those with poor quality of life, oral Chinese herbal medicine can be considered an efficient and safe maintenance therapy strategy.

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)0.008
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.043

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0080.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0160.033
Bibliometrics0.0040.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.143
GPT teacher head0.530
Teacher spread0.387 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent OncologySame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207