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 OpenAlexaff
Steven J. Hatten, Eric J. Lehrer, Jenn Liao, Congzhou M. Sha, Daniel M. Trifiletti, Shankar Siva, Sean M. McBride, David A. Palma, Sheldon L. Holder, Nicholas G. Zaorsky

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.

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)0.026
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.059
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (broad)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.988
Threshold uncertainty score0.137

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0260.059
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.056
Bibliometrics0.0050.005
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0030.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

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

Citations42
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Radiation OncologySame topicColorectal and Anal CarcinomasFrench-language works237,207