MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4403679785 · doi:10.1016/j.breast.2024.103826

Adjuvant denosumab for early breast cancer–Evidence and controversy

2024· article· en· W4403679785 on OpenAlexaff
Laura Moretti, Laura Richelmi, Deborah Cosentini, Rebecca Pedersini, Salvatore Grisanti, Vito Amoroso, Alfredo Berruti, Marta Laganà

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Breast · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicBone health and treatments
Canadian institutionsSurgical Specialties (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDenosumabAdjuvantBreast cancerOncologyInternal medicineCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The efficacy of adjuvant denosumab in combination with hormonotherapy in breast cancer patients was investigated in two randomized trials, ABCSG-18 and D-Care, but the results were mixed with respect to the impact of this drug on disease-free survival. However, the ABCSG-18 study has achieved its primary goal: prevention of clinical fractures. Therefore, the protective role of Denosumab on bone fragility induced by estrogen deprivation, already demonstrated in post-menopausal women, has been validated in the breast cancer setting.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.812
Threshold uncertainty score0.382

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.332
Teacher spread0.306 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe BreastSame topicBone health and treatmentsFrench-language works237,207