An Assessment of Extended Pembrolizumab Dosing in Advanced Non-Small-Cell Lung Cancer in the Covid-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: There are limited clinical data comparing extended dosing (ED) versus standard dosing (SD) of pembrolizumab for metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer. Methods: This retrospective study included patients with metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer and PD-L1 tumor proportion score ≥50% treated with one or more cycles of single-agent pembrolizumab with SD or ED from January 2018 to December 2020. Results: A higher proportion of patients were alive in the ED group (vs SD) at 6 months (94 vs 51%), 12 months (94 vs 33%) and data cutoff (94 vs 26%) (p < 0.001 for all). The rate (44 vs 32%; p = 0.407) and severity of grade ≥3 immune-related adverse events were similar (50 vs 52%); however, ED patients more frequently discontinued treatment due to toxicity (45 vs 15%; p < 0.001). Conclusion: A greater proportion of ED patients were alive at data cutoff, and the rate and severity of immune-related adverse events were similar between groups.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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".