Overall survival (OS) achieved with gemcitabine (G) or gemcitabine-abraxane (GA) in patients (pts) with advanced pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma (PDAC) who received first line modified FOLFIRINOX (m-FFX) palliative chemotherapy.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
e15715 Background: The standard second line treatment in advanced PDAC pts after m-FFX first line palliative chemotherapy is not clearly defined. G is the standard 2nd line treatment in Canada and GA can only be prescribed for pts with a private fund or private drug plan that covers the cost of Abraxane. More data is needed to establish OS achieved with 2ndline G or GA. Methods: The OS of PDAC pts treated with G or GA after m-FFX palliative chemotherapy given between 01-Dec-2011 and 30-Nov-2015 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre (PM), Toronto, Canada were retrospectively reviewed. OS was calculated from date of commencement of 2ndline treatment until death or date of last oncology follow up. Results: Over the 4-year study period, 132 pts were treated with 1st line palliative m-FFX at PM. Of them, at disease progression, 78 (59%) pts received a 2ndline therapy (50 G, 17 GA, 9 clinical trials, and 2 other). The results including demographics, treatment details and survival outcomes of patients treated with G and GA are summarized in the Table 1. Conclusions: Our results do not support single agent G after m-FFX 1st line palliative chemotherapy as median duration of treatment was too short and OS observed with G in this setting is very much limited. The median duration of treatment on GA and OS achieved with GA seem superior but sample size was too small to make a conclusion. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".