MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4214869220 · doi:10.1016/j.adro.2022.100909

A Patient-Level Data Meta-analysis of the Abscopal Effect

2022· review· en· W4214869220 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Radiation Oncology · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicColorectal and Anal Carcinomas
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersCancer Council TasmaniaCancer Council VictoriaPenn State Hershey Cancer InstituteJanssen PharmaceuticalsPenn State College of MedicineGenentechPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity of PennsylvaniaNational Cancer InstituteNational Institutes of HealthAmerican Cancer Society
KeywordsMedicineMeta-analysisAbscopal effectFamily medicineInternal medicineImmunotherapyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Purpose: The abscopal effect is defined when a form of local therapy causes tumor regression of both the target lesion and any untreated tumors. Herein cases of the abscopal effect were systematically reviewed and a patient-level data analysis was performed for clinical predictors of both duration of response and survival. Methods and Materials: The Population, Intervention, Control, Outcome, Study (PICOS) design approach, Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) literature selection process, and Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) were used to find articles published before September 2019 in MEDLINE/PubMed and Google Scholar. Inclusion criteria were (1) population: patients with reported abscopal response; (2) intervention: documented treatment(s); (3) control: none; (4) outcomes: overall and progression-free survival; and (5) setting: retrospective case reports. Time from treatment until abscopal response and time from abscopal response until progression/death were calculated. Univariate and multivariate analyses were conducted for survival outcomes. Results: Fifty studies (n = 55 patients) were included. Median age was 65 years (interquartile range [IQR], 58-70) and 62% were male. Fifty-four (98%) patients received radiation therapy, 34 (62%) received radiation therapy alone, 5 (9.1%) underwent surgery, 4 (7.3%) received chemotherapy, and 11 (20%) received immunotherapy. Median total dose was 32 Gy (IQR, 25.5-48 Gy) and median dose per fraction was 3 Gy (IQR, 2-7.2). Median time until abscopal response was 4 months (IQR, 1-5; min 0.5, max 24). At 5 years, overall survival was 63% and distant progression-free survival was 45%. No variables had statistical significance in predicting duration of response or survival. Conclusions: Almost all reported cases of the abscopal response are after radiation therapy; however, there are no known predictors of duration of response or survival in this population.

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.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.978
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0040.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.219
GPT teacher head0.461
Teacher spread0.242 · 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