MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2884629517 · doi:10.1097/spc.0000000000000359

Treatment of hormone-naïve metastatic prostate cancer

2018· review· en· W2884629517 on OpenAlexaff
Zineb Hamilou, Fred Saad, Karim Fizazi

Bibliographic record

VenueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · 2018
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
FundersGenentechAstellas PharmaPfizer
KeywordsAbiraterone acetateMedicineProstate cancerDocetaxelOncologyAndrogen deprivation therapyRandomized controlled trialAbirateroneInternal medicineChemotherapyClinical trialHormone therapyCancerAndrogen receptor

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Until 2015, androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) alone was the standard-of-care for metastatic hormone-naïve prostate cancer (mHNPC). In the last decade, important landmark therapeutic advances occurred in the management of these patients permitting improvement of their survival. RECENT FINDINGS: At least two prospective randomized trials proved upfront docetaxel (DOC) + ADT benefit consequently providing strong evidence for guidelines modifications. Second, similar benefit results were demonstrated when using upfront abiraterone acetate + ADT in mHNPC. SUMMARY: Both DOC-based chemotherapy and abiraterone acetate provide survival improvement when added to ADT in mHNPC. In the current article, we review the evidence behind this progress and discuss ongoing clinical controversies.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.018

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.269
GPT teacher head0.514
Teacher spread0.245 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations5
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCurrent Opinion in Supportive and Palliative CareSame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207