Role of pemetrexed in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials, with histology subgroup analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: Platinum-based regimens represent the standard first-line treatment for non-small-cell lung cancer (SNCLC). However, newer data have established a role for pemetrexed in the treatment of this disease. Such data suggest that histology represents a determining factor in the selection of treatment. Methods: We undertook a systematic review of the literature for randomized controlled trials that compared the efficacy of pemetrexed with that of other treatments in advanced SNCLC. Data and study quality were assessed according to published guidelines. Results: We identified five trials that compared pemetrexed with other treatments or with placebo. Overall survival for patients treated with pemetrexed was superior to that with other treatments: hazard ratio (HR): 0.89; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.80 to 0.99. The survival benefit was limited to patients with non-squamous histology: hr: 0.82; 95% ci: 0.73 to 0.91. Pemetrexed was inferior to other chemotherapy options in patients with squamous histology: hr: 1.19; 95% ci: 0.99 to 1.43. Conclusions: Compared with other chemotherapy agents, pemetrexed is more effective for the treatment of SNCLC in patients with non-squamous histology.
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 | 0.021 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.019 | 0.048 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".