MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2981839573 · doi:10.1093/annonc/mdz295

Position of an international panel of lung cancer experts on the decision for expansion of approval for pembrolizumab in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer with a PD-L1 expression level of ≥1% by the USA Food and Drug Administration

2019· editorial· en· W2981839573 on OpenAlexaff
Giannis Mountzios, Jordi Remón, Silvia Novello, Normand Blais, Raffaele Califano, Tanja Čufer, Anne‐Marie C. Dingemans, Stephen V. Liu, Nir Peled, Nathan A. Pennell, Martin Reck, Christian Rolfo, Daniel S.W. Tan, Johan Vansteenkiste, Howard West, Benjamin Besse

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Oncology · 2019
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCancer Immunotherapy and Biomarkers
Canadian institutionsUniversité de MontréalCentre Hospitalier de l’Université de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPembrolizumabMedicineLung cancerChemotherapyOncologyInternal medicinePemetrexedCancerImmunotherapyCisplatin

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Immune-checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have transformed the therapeutic landscape of advanced non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC) and now represent the new first-line standard of care (SoC), either in combination with platinum-based chemotherapy, achieving a survival benefit independent of histology and programmed death ligand-1 (PD-L1) expression levels [1–4], or as monotherapy in patients whose tumors express PD-L1 in ≥50% of the tumor cells [5, 6]. Recently, the phase III KEYNOTE 042 trial reported that pembrolizumab monotherapy (200 mg every 3 weeks for up to 35 cycles) in patients with a PD-L1 tumor proportion score (TPS) of at least 1% significantly improved overall survival (OS) compared with investigators’ choice of platinum-based chemotherapy [16.7 months versus 12.1 months, hazard ratio (HR) 0.81; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–0.93; P = 0.0018] [7].

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)0.056
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.075
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.056
Threshold uncertainty score0.294

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0560.075
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.004
Bibliometrics0.0030.002
Science and technology studies0.0050.003
Scholarly communication0.0090.006
Open science0.0060.006
Research integrity0.0350.033
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0120.009

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.400
Teacher spread0.333 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEditorial

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

Citations16
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of OncologySame topicCancer Immunotherapy and BiomarkersFrench-language works237,207