Progression-Free Survival as a Primary Endpoint in Clinical Trials of Metastatic Colorectal Cancer
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, significant advances have been made in the management of metastatic colorectal cancer. Traditionally, an improvement in overall survival has been considered the “gold standard”—the most convincing measure of efficacy. However, overall survival requires larger patient numbers and longer follow-up and may often be confounded by other factors, including subsequent therapies and crossover. Given the number of active therapies for potential investigation, demand for rapid evaluation and early availability of new therapies is growing. Progression-free survival is regarded as an important measure of treatment benefit and, compared with overall survival, can be evaluated earlier, with fewer patients and no confounding by subsequent lines of therapy. The present paper reviews the advantages, limitations, and relevance of progression-free survival as a primary endpoint in randomized trials of metastatic colorectal cancer.
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 | 0.394 | 0.325 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".