MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2980374528 · doi:10.1159/000503419

Prolonged Response to Regorafenib in a Patient with Iodine Refractory Thyroid Cancer

2019· article· en· W2980374528 on OpenAlexaff
Selina K. Wong, Quincy S. Chu, Jennifer L. Spratlin, Randeep Sangha, Alexander McEwan, Donald W. Morrish, Diane Arndt, Gwen Sergenson, Adriaan Cleton, Funan Huang, Michael B. Sawyer

Bibliographic record

VenueCase Reports in Oncology · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenvatinibMedicineSorafenibRegorafenibThyroid cancerFollicular thyroid cancerInternal medicineOncologyVandetanibThyroidCancerPapillary thyroid cancerHepatocellular carcinomaColorectal cancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Thyroid cancer is the most common type of endocrine malignancy. Cornerstones of thyroid cancer treatment include surgery, radioactive iodine ablation, and thyroid stimulating hormone suppression. The National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines recommend two tyrosine kinase inhibitors for thyroid cancer patients who are non-responsive to iodine: sorafenib and lenvatinib. Another oral kinase inhibitor, regorafenib, is not considered standard of care treatment for differentiated thyroid cancer. The chemical structures of regorafenib and sorafenib differ by a single fluorine atom. Given the significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) of sorafenib compared to placebo demonstrated in the phase 3 DECISION trial, we report on a patient with iodine-refractory follicular thyroid cancer treated with regorafenib as part of a phase 1 clinical trial. A 75 year old woman was diagnosed with follicular thyroid carcinoma in 2006 and initiated on treatment with regorafenib in 2011. She has completed 76 cycles with stable disease and pulmonary metastases 34% smaller than baseline.

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)0.001
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: Case report · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.449
Threshold uncertainty score0.605

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.318
Teacher spread0.304 · 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 designCase report
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

Citations3
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCase Reports in OncologySame topicThyroid Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207