Intraperitoneal chemotherapy: its use in epithelial ovarian cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The peritoneal cavity is the principle site of spread and recurrence in women with epithelial ovarian cancer (EOC). Intraperitoneal (ip.) administration of chemotherapy, as a means of increasing the dose intensity delivered to tumor while minimizing systemic toxicity, is therefore an attractive therapeutic approach. Seven trials, including three large randomized clinical trials, have shown a survival benefit for women with stage III/IV. EOC who received a combination of ip. and intravenous (iv.) chemotherapy following optimal, primary cytoreductive (debulking) surgery. An announcement from the National Cancer Institute (USA) in 2006 recognized the benefit of this approach (which on average results in a 21.6% decreased risk of death) suggesting that ip./iv. chemotherapy should be considered as a standard option for this select group of women. Implementation of ip. chemotherapy for EOC, however, remains controversial due to increased toxicity and complexity of delivery compared with standard iv. therapy. Ongoing research is focused on optimization of the ip./iv. chemotherapy regimen, definition of new patient populations who may benefit from this approach and investigating the potential to combine ip. therapy with emerging ‘targeted’ agents.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".