MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2791796775 · doi:10.1016/s0022-5347(18)33424-4

1199: Canadian Urologic Oncology Group (CUOG) Phase II Study Using Docetaxel/Prednisone in the Second Line Setting for Metastatic Androgen Independent Prostate Cancer in Patients Progressing after First Line Mitoxantrone/Prednisone

2006· article· en· W2791796775 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Fred Saad, Dean Reuther, Scott Ernst, Scoff North, Tina Chang, Paul Perrotte, Pierre I. Karakiewicz, Eric Winquist

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Urology · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMitoxantroneMedicinePrednisoneDocetaxelProstate cancerOncologyInternal medicineCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UROLOGy® potentiai confounders.An unexpected finding was that the effect of baseline HGB on overall and progression-free survival varied significantly by race.Below a baseline HGB of 11.7 g/dL black patients had worse overall survival than their non-black counterparts (significant only below 7.8 g/dL).Above 11.7 g/dL, black patients had better overall survival than their non-black counterparts (significant only above 14.2 g/dL).CONCLUSIONS: In this newly diagnosed metastatic prostate cancer sample, HGB change after 3 months of ADT was heterogenous and was associated with shorter survival and shorter progression-free survival after adjustment for disease status and other baseline covariates.While race alone was not a strong predictor of death or disease progression, the effect of baseline hemoglobin on overall and progression-free survival varied significantly by race.

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)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.116
Threshold uncertainty score0.231

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.351
Teacher spread0.322 · 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 designNon-randomized trial
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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of Urology→Same topicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research→French-language works237,207→