XELODA® AND TAXOTERE®: A REVIEW OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE COMBINATION FOR USE IN METASTATIC BREAST CANCER
Bibliographic record
Abstract
SUMMARY Docetaxel (Taxotere®) and capecitabine (Xeloda®) demonstrate synergy in pre‐clinical studies and both show high single‐agent efficacy in metastatic breast cancer patients previously treated with an anthracycline. The two drugs used in combination in a similar group of patients have been evaluated in a randomised phase III trial comparing this combination with single‐agent docetaxel. The results of this study indicate the combination arm to be favourable with significantly superior median time to disease progression (6.1 vs 4.2 months, hazard ratio 0.652, p=0.0001), objective response rate and overall survival without a significant increase in the overall incidence of treatment related adverse effects. This combination of docetaxel and capecitabine provides improved survival prospects for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ongoing studies will provide further data to optimise the scheduling and use of this combination in the future.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
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".