Bibliographic record
Abstract
who undergo locoregional treatment exhibit a survival advantage compared to those who do not receive such interventions.However, these findings have been submitted to strong criticisms due to the heterogeneity in patient, tumours and treatment modalities.Four published randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have since tested the value of PTS added to ST or not, with overall survival (OS) as the primary end point.The results of three published trials show no OS benefit for the addition of PSLT: Indian Tata Memorial, U.S./Canada E2108, and Austrian POSYTIVE (although POSYTIVE did not reach full accrual).The fourth RCT (Turkey, MF07-01) shows an OS benefit for PTS at 5 years (42% vs 24% in the ST arm; hazard ratio [HR], 0.66; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49-0.88).The 5-year survival in the PTS arm of MF07-01 is identical to the OS in both arms of E2108 trial, suggesting that the difference observed in the ST arm of MF07-01 is a result of worse disease (from imbalanced randomization) (1-4).The results of the JCOG1017 were disclosed in 2023 and concluded that PTS is not recommended for all de novo MBC patients but can control local disease in selected patients because of the clear improvement in local control (5).Not surprisingly trends in survival from several high-income countries show consistent improvements in ABC mainly due to advances in systemic therapy with targeted agents.This evolving landscape also influences the decision to treat the primary tumour.Novel targeted therapies and immunotherapies have shown promising results and, in such cases, the role of PTS may diminish as the systemic treatment effectively addresses both the primary tumour and distant metastases.It is clear that some indications for PTS will persist like the control of local impacting disease with detriment on the QoL.Nomograms build recently based on large datasets can help to calculate individual benefits for PTS in de novo ABC but lack information regarding the use of new ST.Although it is tempting to conclude that more RCT are needed, it will be very unlikely that they can test all the new treatments available in this limited but diverse population.The use of prospective international cohorts will more likely give us answers in a shorter time, especially if using artificial intelligence algorithms to predict outcomes in each specific situation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".