MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3190480520 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-742254/v1

The Effectiveness and Safety of Metronomic Chemotherapy in Patients with Head and Neck Carcinoma: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

2021· review· en· W3190480520 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Xingli Li, Jianjian Wang, Ting Zhang, Jia-Bin Wang, Zhangcai Zheng, Cheng Wang, Lan‐Yan Yang

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2021
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHead and Neck Cancer Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisRandomized controlled trialChecklistHazard ratioInternal medicineHead and neck cancerSubgroup analysisSystematic reviewOncologyCancerMEDLINEConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Head and neck carcinoma, usually begins in the squamous cells, not only seriously endangers the quality of life, but brings a heavy financial burden for families and countries. Metronomic chemotherapy, a frequent administration of chemotherapeutic agents at a non-toxic dose, gives an alternative low-cost and tolerated approach for patients. We conducted a systematic review to find the effectiveness and safety of metronomic chemotherapy for head and neck cancer.Methods: We searched seven databases and Clinical.gov from the inception to July 14, 2021. The patients diagnosed head and neck cancer and older than 18 were included. Metronomic chemotherapy was defined as intervention. Randomized and non-randomized trials were all included. Quality assessment of included randomized control trials was performed using the Cochrane Risk-of-Bias criteria, cohort studies using The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), single arm trials using the checklist recommended by The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Studies were synthetized using a narrative approach. The indicators used for meta-analysis was hazard ratio (HR).Results: 310 Literatures were potentially eligible from 7 databases, finally 13 records were included. Five studies were of high quality, while eight were of moderate quality. The overall effect of HR for death of five trials reported had no statistically significant (HR=0.89, 95%CI 0.71-1.10). Subgroup analysis by different design showed a statistically significant HR (0.73, 95%CI 0.60-0.90) in randomized control trials while no significant difference in subgroup of prospective study design (HR=1.23, 95%CI 0.72-2.10). As for HR for PFS, there was no significant difference in overall effect of four studies. HR for PFS was 0.84 (95%CI 0.55-1.31). Subgroup analysis of study design showed that randomized control trials produced a significant HR (0.54, 95%CI 0.45-0.64), while prospective studies did not (1.25, 95%CI 0.73, 2.14).Conclusions: Metronomic chemotherapy has been an optimistic option for treatment for advanced head and neck cancer, especially in low income and medical resource-restricted regions.

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)0.013
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.033
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.067

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0130.033
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0170.033
Bibliometrics0.0060.007
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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 head0.085
GPT teacher head0.427
Teacher spread0.342 · 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 designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations2
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch SquareSame topicHead and Neck Cancer StudiesFrench-language works237,207