MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2910836231 · doi:10.5430/jst.v9n1p12

Letrozole and anastrozole in early breast cancer postmenopausal patients in oncology department at Suez Canal University Hospital

2019· article· en· W2910836231 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Manar Montasser, Ihab Mohammed Hassanin, Soheir E. Abdelmohsen, Maha Lotfy Zamzam

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Solid Tumors · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicEstrogen and related hormone effects
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnastrozoleLetrozoleMedicineTamoxifenBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineAromatase inhibitorGynecologyAromataseCancerHormonal therapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: There are limited data in the literature comparing the efficacy of aromatase inhibitors in postmenopausal hormonal receptor positive early breast cancer patients.Aim of study: To compare the efficacy of letrozole and anastrozole in hormone-receptor positive postmenopausal breast cancer patients.Methods: A retrospective study with a mean follow-up period of 64 months (about 5 years) for 74 files of early invasive postmenopausal breast cancer hormonal receptor positive patients; 39 received letrozole and 35 received anastrozole, considering TTP as primary end point, and OS as second end points.Results: Letrozole is not superior to anastrozole during the first 55 months of treatment (80% PFS at 5th year), and 80% OS benefit at 6th year. Overweight patients had better (90% PFS at 5th year) than obese patients (60% PFS at 5th year).Conclusion: Letrozole is not superior to anastrozole in efficacy in early invasive hormonal receptor positive breast cancer postmenopausal patients during the first 5 years of treatment; however, Letrozole 2nd line after tamoxifen is superior to anastrozole 2nd line after tamoxifen in treating obese patients with early invasive hormone receptor positive breast cancer.

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 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 score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.383

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.002
GPT teacher head0.207
Teacher spread0.206 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Solid TumorsSame topicEstrogen and related hormone effectsFrench-language works237,207