Safety and Effectiveness of Chemotherapy in Elderly Biliary Tract Cancer Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety and effectiveness of chemotherapy in elderly patients with biliary tract cancer (BTC) remain unclear. Therefore, we retrospectively reviewed patients who underwent chemotherapy for locally advanced, metastatic, or recurrent BTC at our institution from January 2016 to December 2021. Of the 283 included patients, 91 (32.5%) were aged 75 years or older when initiating chemotherapy. Elderly patients were more likely than non-elderly patients to receive monotherapy with gemcitabine or S-1 (58.7% vs. 9.4%, p < 0.001) and were less likely to experience grade 3–4 toxicities (55.4% vs. 70.2%, p = 0.015). The rates of termination due to intolerance (6.5% vs. 5.8%, p = 0.800) and transition to second-line chemotherapy (39.1% vs. 40.3%, p = 0.849) were similar between groups. In the overall cohort, age was not an independent predictor of overall survival (OS). Within the elderly cohort, there were no differences in severe adverse events between patients receiving monotherapy and combination therapy (50.0% vs. 63.2%, p = 0.211). Median OS was longer in the combination therapy group (10.4 vs. 14.1 months; p = 0.010); however, choice of monotherapy was not an independent predictor of overall survival. Monotherapy appears to be a viable alternative in selected elderly BTC patients.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".