MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3137566103 · doi:10.1016/j.eururo.2021.02.041

Untangling the PROfound Trial for Advanced Prostate Cancer: Is There Really a Role for Olaparib?

2021· editorial· en· W3137566103 on OpenAlexaff
Daniel H. Kwon, Christopher M. Booth, Vinay Prasad

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Urology · 2021
Typeeditorial
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicProstate Cancer Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
FundersArnold Ventures
KeywordsOlaparibMedicinePARP inhibitorProstate cancerHomologous recombinationOncologyClinical endpointInternal medicineProstateGeneCancerRandomized controlled trialPoly ADP ribose polymeraseGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The phase 3 PROfound trial led to the recent approval of the PARP inhibitor olaparib for men with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer and mutations in homologous recombination repair genes. We raise methodological concerns about the trial, including: a suboptimal control arm, problematic use of crossover, use of radiographic progression-free survival as the primary endpoint, and ambiguous benefit for patients with mutations in homologous recombination repair genes other than BRCA1, BRCA2, and ATM.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Editorial · Consensus signal: Editorial
Teacher disagreement score0.058
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
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 integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.322 · 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.

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

Citations11
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean UrologySame topicProstate Cancer Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207