MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2898590125 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdy287.080

A randomized phase II study of cisplatin plus radiotherapy versus durvalumab plus radiotherapy followed by adjuvant durvalumab versus durvalumab plus radiotherapy followed by adjuvant tremelimumab and durvalumab in intermediate risk, HPV-positive, locoregionally advanced oropharyngeal squamous cell cancer (LA-OSCC) (Canadian Cancer Trials Group HN.9)

2018· article· en· W2898590125 on OpenAlexaffabout
Anna Spreafico, Khalil Sultanem, B. Chen, Scott V. Bratman, Jolie Ringash, Alexander V. Louie, Andrea McNiven, Kimberly Whelan, John Hilton, John Yoo, J-P. Machiels, Lisa Licitra, Sjoukje F. Oosting, John Waldron, L.L. Siu, Wendy R. Parulekar

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity Health NetworkPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreOttawa HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreJewish General HospitalOttawa Regional Cancer Foundation
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDurvalumabOncologyTremelimumabInternal medicineRadiation therapyCancerImmunotherapyNivolumabIpilimumab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Definitive cisplatin-based chemoradiotherapy (CRT) in patients (pts) with locoregionally advanced head and neck SCC is associated with acute and long-term toxicities. Immune checkpoint inhibitors, such as anti-PD1/L1 and anti-CTLA4 antibodies, are actively being investigated in this disease setting. HN.9 evaluates a chemo-sparing approach in pts with HPV+ intermediate risk LA-OSCC (defined by AJCC 8th edition as: T1-2N1 smokers; T3N0-N1 smokers and T1-3N2 any smoking history).

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)0.003
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: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.011
Threshold uncertainty score0.037

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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 head0.061
GPT teacher head0.408
Teacher spread0.347 · 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 designRandomized 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

Citations7
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207