MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4367301161 · doi:10.21037/jtd-23-380

A comprehensive clinical evaluation of first-line drugs for ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer

2023· article· en· W4367301161 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Wan-Qing Wang, Tao Xu, Jingjing Zhang, Yong Wang, Yao Wang, Wei Zhang, Jianguo Zhu

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Thoracic Disease · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersJiangsu Pharmaceutical Association
KeywordsAlectinibCrizotinibCeritinibMedicineAnaplastic lymphoma kinaseGuidelineLung cancerIntensive care medicineOncologyInternal medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Anaplastic lymphoma kinase-tyrosine kinase inhibitors (ALK-TKIs) are mainly used in the treatment of ALK-positive advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but a comprehensive clinical evaluation of ALK-TKIs is lacking. Hence, a comparison of ALK-TKIs for first-line treatment of ALK-positive advanced NSCLC is essential to provide rational drug use and a basis for improving national policies and systems. Methods: According to the Guideline for the Administration of Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Drugs (2021) and the Technical Guideline for the Clinical Comprehensive Evaluation of Antitumor Drugs (2022), a comprehensive clinical evaluation index system of first-line treatment drugs for ALK-positive advanced NSCLC was established by literature review and expert interviews. We conducted a systematic literature review, meta-analysis, and other relevant data analyses, combined with an indicator system, to establish a quantitative and qualitative integration analysis for each indicator and each dimension of crizotinib, ceritinib, alectinib, ensartinib, brigatinib, and lorlatinib. Results: The comprehensive clinical evaluation results of all dimensions were as follows: in terms of safety, alectinib had a lower incidence of grade 3 and above adverse reactions; for effectiveness, alectinib, brigatinib, ensartinib, and lorlatinib showed better clinical efficacy, and alectinib and brigatinib have been recommended by several clinical guidelines; in terms of economy, second-generation ALK-TKIs have more cost-utility advantages, and both alectinib and ceritinib have been recommended by the UK and Canadian Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies; for suitability, accessibility, and innovation, alectinib has a higher degree of physician recommendations and patient compliance. Except for brigatinib and lorlatinib, all other ALK-TKIs have been admitted to the medical insurance directory; the accessibility of crizotinib, ceritinib, and alectinib is good, meeting the needs of patients. Second- and third-generation ALK-TKIs have higher blood-brain barrier permeability, stronger inhibition ability, and innovation than first-generation ALK-TKIs. Conclusions: Compared with other ALK-TKIs, alectinib performs better across six dimensions and has a higher comprehensive clinical value. The results provide better drug choice and rational use for patients with ALK-positive advanced NSCLC.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.602
Threshold uncertainty score0.394

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.053
GPT teacher head0.480
Teacher spread0.428 · 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

Citations10
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Thoracic DiseaseSame topicLung Cancer Treatments and MutationsFrench-language works237,207