MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4399300859 · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(24)00885-7

Vimseltinib versus placebo for tenosynovial giant cell tumour (MOTION): a multicentre, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial

2024· article· en· W4399300859 on OpenAlexaff
Hans Gelderblom, Vivek A. Bhadri, Silvia Stacchiotti, Sebastian Bauer, Andrew J. Wagner, Michiel A. J. van de Sande, Nicholas M. Bernthal, Antonio López–Pousa, Albiruni Abdul Razak, Antoîne Italiano, Mahbubl Ahmed, Axel Le Cesne, Gabriel Tinoco, Kjetil Boye, Javier Martín‐Broto, Emanuela Palmerini, Salvatore Tafuto, Sarah Pratap, Benjamin Powers, Peter Reichardt, Antonio Casado, Piotr Rutkowski, Christopher Tait, Fiona Zarins, B. Harrow, Maitreyi G. Sharma, Rodrigo Ruiz‐Soto, Matthew L. Sherman, Jean‐Yves Blay, William D. Tap, Herbert H. Loong, Antonella Brunello, Andreas H. Krieg, Mark Algulnik, Richard F. Riedel, Scott H. Okuno, Elizabeth T. Loggers, Thierry Alcindor, Virginia Ferraresi, César Serrano, R. Lor Randall, Breelyn A. Wilky, Vinod Ravi

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Lancet · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMusculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersDaiichi Sankyo EuropeFoghorn TherapeuticsServierNational Cancer InstituteChugai PharmaceuticalGenentechEuropean Network for Rare Adult Solid CancersIpsenPharmaMarEuropean Society for Medical OncologyAstraZenecaInstitut National Du CancerPfizerSymphogenIncyteAmgenDeciphera PharmaceuticalsConnective Tissue Oncology SocietyKaryopharm TherapeuticsBristol-Myers SquibbEli Lilly and CompanyIterion TherapeuticsSanofiLes Laboratories Pierre Fabre
KeywordsMedicinePlaceboClinical endpointPopulationSurgeryClinical trialInternal medicineAdverse effectPathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex
No abstract in any covered source. Its absence is recorded, not treated as a negative.

No abstract. This is not a gap in this database; OpenAlex has none either. 23.3% of the frame is in this state, and the screen finds HALF as much metaresearch here, so the absence is a measured bias rather than a missing field.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0030.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.058
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.290 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
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

Citations67
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueThe LancetSame topicMusculoskeletal synovial abnormalities and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207