MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2909817324 · doi:10.2147/cmar.s180802

Comparative study of adjuvant chemotherapeutic efficacy of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide in female breast cancer

2019· article· en· W2909817324 on OpenAlex
Muhammad Adeel, Muhammad Asif, Muhammad Naeem Faisal, Muhammad Hasanain Chaudary, Muhammad Sheraz Arshad Malik, Muhammad Khalid

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueCancer Management and Research · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicBreast Cancer Treatment Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersPartenariat Canadien Contre Le Cancer
KeywordsCyclophosphamideDocetaxelDoxorubicinMedicineAdjuvantBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicinePharmacologyCancerChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: This retrospective study presents a comparative analysis of the overall survival and toxicities, as side effects, of docetaxel plus cyclophosphamide (TC) and doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide (AC). The study measured their efficacies during adjuvant chemotherapy, treating Pakistani breast cancer patients by validating the results obtained, with the published analysis of the same treatment given to US patients. Patients and methods: Between June 2015 and September 2017, for four chemotherapy cycles, 189 patients out of 358 received TC (75 mg/m 2 of docetaxel, 600 mg/m 2 of cyclophosphamide) and 169 were treated with AC (60 mg/m 2 of doxorubicin, 600 mg/m 2 of cyclophosphamide). On the basis of using pathological markers to assess patients, toxicities, as side effects, (due to docetaxel, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide) were listed in the database of this study. Common factors with respect to common terminology criteria for adverse events version 5.0 and side effects listed in MedlinePlus, NIH US database, and from the database of this study were then separated to be included in comparison for this study. Statistically, chi-squared test was used at α=0.05. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the proportions of patients with vomiting, extreme tiredness, diarrhea, mild anemia, stability, and overall survival because P -value >0.05. However, AC remained less toxic ( P -value <0.05) by 22.6%, 25.7%, 25.3%, 12.4%, 20.8%, and 16.4% compared to TC for changes in taste, muscle pain, burning hands, change in hemoglobin level, moderate anemia, and needing blood transfusion respectively, whereas TC remained less toxic by 52.9%, 32.5%, and 26.3% for dizziness, weight loss, and sores in throat and mouth, respectively. Conclusion: At 27 months, TC was more toxic than AC, whereas both combinations had the same overall survival rate. Keywords: patient health during chemotherapy, overall survival, TC vs AC, pathological markers, toxicity of anticancer drugs

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.745

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.362
Teacher spread0.326 · 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