MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4315853248 · doi:10.51731/cjht.2023.538

Lurbinectedin (Zepzelca)

2023· article· en· W4315853248 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
CADTH

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Health Technologies · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Research Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)DiseaseLung cancerOncologyIntensive care medicineClinical trialCancerOverall survivalInternal medicineStage (stratigraphy)Surgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex


 CADTH recommends that Zepzelca not be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of stage III or metastatic small cell lung cancer (SCLC).
 While evidence from a clinical trial demonstrated that some patients had disease that responded during treatment with Zepzelca, without a control group there is uncertainty in how much the observed responses were due to Zepzelca treatment rather than chance.
 There was too much uncertainty in the reviewed evidence to determine how Zepzelca compares to other treatments used in Canada in terms of delaying disease progression, improving survival, and minimizing side effects.
 It is unclear whether Zepzelca meets any of the needs identified by patients: improving survival, delaying disease progression, relieving cancer symptoms, minimizing side effects, and maintaining or improving quality of life.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.653
Threshold uncertainty score0.817

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.318 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Health TechnologiesSame topicLung Cancer Research StudiesFrench-language works237,207