Post-Whole Brain Radiation Therapy Systemic Treatment Increases Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose/Objective: Brain metastases account for more than one-half of all intracranial malignancies.The prognosis of cancer patients with brain metastases has been dismal even with the availability of surgery, stereotactic radiosurgery, whole brain radiation therapy or the combination of these modalities.This study is to explore the impact of post-whole brain radiotherapy systemic treatment on patient survival. Material/Methods:From July 1, 2005 to May 1, 2016, a cohort of patients with brain metastases was treated with whole brain radiation therapy, daily treatment, five days per week.Data was analyzed by comparing the survival difference between the group of patients who received post-whole brain radiation therapy systemic treatment and the group of patients who did not have post-whole brain radiation therapy systemic treatment.Results: A total of 65 patients, male 31, female 34, aged 25 to 92 years old were identified.Eleven out of 65 patients received post-whole brain radiotherapy systemic treatment including chemotherapy (for 8 out of 11 patients), target therapy (for 2 out of 11 patients), and chemotherapy plus target therapy (for 1 out of 11 patients).The median post-whole brain radiation therapy survival for patients who received post-whole brain radiation therapy systemic treatment was 13.5 months, compared to a much shorter median survival of only 2.5 months for patients who did not receive post-whole brain radiotherapy systemic treatment.Conclusion: Post-whole brain radiation therapy systemic treatment increases the overall survival of patients with brain metastases.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.009 | 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; 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".