MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4281999473 · doi:10.1016/j.ejca.2022.04.026

Neoadjuvant chemotherapy improves survival in patients with oesophageal mucinous adenocarcinoma: Post-hoc analysis of the UK MRC OE02 and OE05 trials

2022· article· en· W4281999473 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Drolaiz H.W. Liu, Nina Šefčovičová, Jake Emmerson, Louisa N. Spaans, Yuichi Saito, Gordon G.A. Hutchins, Matthew Nankivell, Ruth E. Langley, William Allum, David Cunningham, Rupert Langer, Heike I. Grabsch

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Cancer · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEsophageal Cancer Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchInstitute of Cancer ResearchCancer Research UKMedImmuneRocheClovis OncologyAstraZenecaEli Lilly and CompanyBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineHazard ratioMucinChemotherapyAdenocarcinomaInternal medicineOncologyNeoadjuvant therapyCohortGastroenterologyPost-hoc analysisConfidence intervalPathologyCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: ) do not benefit from neoadjuvant chemotherapy. METHODS: ). The relationship between histological phenotype, clinicopathological characteristics, survival and treatment was analysed. RESULTS: patients in test and validation cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study to suggest in a post-hoc analysis of material from two independent phase III clinical trials that the poor survival of patients with mucinous OeAC can be improved by neoadjuvant chemotherapy. Future studies are warranted to identify potential underlying biological, biochemical or pharmacokinetic interactions between extracellular mucin and chemotherapy.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.036
Threshold uncertainty score0.542

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.017
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.271 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2022
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of CancerSame topicEsophageal Cancer Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207