Comparison of adjuvant chemoradiation to peri-operative chemotherapy for the treatment of resected gastric and gastroesophageal junction adenocarincoma.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
103 Background: Currently there are several accepted peri-operative treatment modalities for the resected gastric (GC) and gastroesophageal junction (GEJ) adenocarcinoma. In the 2008, peri-operative chemotherapy (CRT) using the MAGIC was adopted as the preferred approach to adjuvant chemoradiation with the MacDonald protocol (cXRT) in the British Columbia. An era to era comparison was performed to determine if there were differences in outcomes. Methods: Data from the pharmacy records of patients (pts) referred to 1 of 5 cancer treatment in BC were analyzed from 2001- July 2010. Pts that underwent curative resection for GC or GEJ were only included. cXRT cohort was defined from Jan 2001-Dec 2007, prior to the CRT era. CRT cohort started from Jan 2008-July 2010. Descriptive statistics were used to compare the groups. Survival analysis was performed using Kaplan Meier methods. Results: The Table summarizes the patient characteristics. In the CRT arm, there were more males, less pts with a LN ratio >0.2 and shorter median follow-up. 92.1% completed the pre-op chemotherapy and 44.7% completed post-op chemotherapy whereas 73.3% of pts completed cXRT (p<0.05). 1 yr survival was similar between the 2 cohorts. Median overall survival was not reached in the CRT arm and was 64.1 months in the cXRT arm. Conclusions: Delivery of CRT was similar to that in the MAGIC trial. Outcomes of CRT compared to cXRT appears to be similar in this cohort to cohort study with similar 1 yr survival. Pre-operative CRT results in less pts with a LN ratio > 0.2. Further follow-up is needed with respect to relapse and overall survival. Either modality can be considered for peri-operative management of GC or GEJ adenocarcinoma. [Table: see text]
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".