Local accrual pattern of a breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy clinical trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
878 Background: Less than 5% of new cancer patients participate in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to evaluate accrual to a clinical trial of breast cancer adjuvant chemotherapy at a regional cancer centre. Methods: A retrospective review of patients treated for primary breast cancer between June 2001 and June 2003 was conducted. Results: 165 charts were reviewed. 62 patients received adjuvant chemotherapy. Of these, 42 (68%) fit the age criteria for the clinical trial. 15 were ineligible due to tumor characteristics. Of the 27 patients who were eligible for the trial based on age and tumor characteristics, 12 (44%) could not be treated on clinical trial because they lived in a peripheral community. Of the 15 remaining patients who were eligible for treatment on clinical trial at the cancer center, 7 (47%) were actually entered in the trial. Patient's fear of potential toxicity was the primary reason for not participating in the clinical trial. Conclusions: At our institution, living in a peripheral community was a leading reason for ineligibilty for a clinical trial of adjuvant chemotherapy of breast cancer. Accrual to this specific trial was nearly half of all patients who were eligible based on age, tumor characteristics, and location. No significant financial relationships to disclose.
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 | 0.057 | 0.137 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.003 |
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".