Errors in Abstract and Affiliations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
question: of the trials that show worsening of QOL, what percentage belongs to targeted drugs, cytotoxic drugs, etc? Drs King-Kallimanis et al correctly state that 14% of targeted drug trials reported worsened QOL compared with 8% of cytotoxic drug trials. We reported that 50% of trials with worsened QOL were targeted drug trials vs 17% belonging to cytotoxic drugs, which is also a correct statement. Looking at the data from both perspectives reveals a higher percentage with worsened QOL for targeted drugs than for cytotoxic drugs. We agree with the authors that a future study with a larger sample size allowing us to control for issues such as statistical hierarchy would be a valuable way to further explore these issues. However, we disagree that our results will be used by patients to make decisions on therapy because such treatment decisions should be made based on the benefits, risks, and QOL outcomes of the specific therapy in question and not the results of pooled analysis across tumor types and drug classes.
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 | 0.013 | 0.226 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.176 | 0.169 |
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".