MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2782140564 · doi:10.3390/jcm7010007

FOLFIRINOX Chemotherapy in Metastatic Pancreatic Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Retrospective and Phase II Studies

2018· review· en· W2782140564 on OpenAlexaff
Stéphane Thibodeau, Ioannis A. Voutsadakis

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Clinical Medicine · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology Research
Canadian institutionsEssar Steel Algoma (Canada)Sault Area HospitalNOSM University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineFOLFIRINOXOncologyPancreatic cancerMeta-analysisChemotherapyInternal medicineCancerOxaliplatinColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of the FOLFIRINOX regimen within the last decade marked the first progress in the clinical field of metastatic pancreatic cancer which had not seen any improvements in treatment availability for several years. In a phase III randomized clinical trial, FOLFIRINOX showed superior efficacy compared to the previous standard treatment of gemcitabine monotherapy. Nevertheless, it is unknown whether the superior results observed in this single phase III clinical trial can be translated more broadly to clinical practice. Our investigation sought to analyze all published evidence of the FOLFIRINOX regimen in series and phase II trials and compare it to the experience of the phase III study. Survival analysis revealed that FOLFIRINOX was associated with an Overall Survival of 10-11 months both in the trials and in off-trial settings, with response rates also similar in both settings. The adverse effect profile was consistent between the pooled phase II and off-trial experience and the FOLFIRINOX regimen arm observed in the randomized phase III trial.

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)0.007
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.016
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0070.016
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.011
Bibliometrics0.0050.007
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.444
GPT teacher head0.624
Teacher spread0.180 · 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

Citations54
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Clinical MedicineSame topicPancreatic and Hepatic Oncology ResearchFrench-language works237,207