Bibliographic record
Abstract
To the Editor: I disagree with Alberts et al 1 when they contend that intraperitoneal chemotherapy should be considered standard treatment for stage III ovarian cancer.The editorialists seem surprised that this treatment approach has not received widespread acceptance despite "three positive phase III trials."However, the Gynecologic Oncology Group (GOG) study, GOG-172, 2 has been reported only in abstract form without mature survival data, and the GOG-114 3 showed marginally significant survival improvement using a regimen that the authors themselves rejected as too toxic for further study.The earlier Intergroup trial 4 is equally problematic, as the survival difference was small, with about a 4% difference in 6-year overall survival, overlapping confidence intervals for median survival (42% to 54% with and 35% to 45% without intraperitoneal treatment), and two treatment-related deaths in the intraperitoneal chemotherapy group.In addition, there was no treatment benefit seen in that study for the subgroup of patients with minimal residual disease.This argues against the editorialists' claim that the benefit of intraperitoneal chemotherapy is based on a "well-established pharmacologic principle."Furthermore, the Intergroup study was conducted before the availability of taxanes, and therefore, the control group received only cyclophosphamide and cisplatin.It remains to be seen whether the small improvement in survival with intraperitoneal chemotherapy can be more easily obtained with the use of better systemic therapy.Before we subject all patients with optimally debulked stage III ovarian cancer to the inconvenience and toxicity of intraperitoneal therapy, we must first demonstrate that it is worth the bother.It would seem prudent to await the publication of mature survival and toxicity data from the GOG-172 study.
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 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.189 | 0.100 |
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".