Identification and validation the predictive biomarkers based on risk-adjusted control chart in gemcitabine with or without erlotinib for pancreatic cancer therapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: gemcitabine alone (GEM) on patients with unresectable, locally advanced, or metastatic pancreatic cancer were studied. This trial statistically demonstrated that the GEM-E combination therapy moderately improves overall survival (OS) of patients. However, real-world analysis suggested that GEM-E for pancreatic cancer was not more effective than GEM. The heterogeneity in outcomes or treatment effect exist. Thus, we tried to find predictive biomarkers to identifying the heterogeneous patients. Methods: Of the 569 eligible patients, 480 patients had plasma samples. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards model were used to identify baseline characteristics related to OS, and a risk adjusted Exponentially Weighted Moving Average (EWMA) control chart based on a weighted score test from the Cox model was constructed to monitor patients' survival risk. Maximally selected rank statistics were constructed to identifying the predictive biomarkers, in addition, a risk adjusted control chart based on a weighted score test from the Cox model was constructed to validating the predictive biomarkers, discover the patients who sensitive to the GEM-E or GEM. Results: Three baseline characteristics (ECOG performance status, extent of disease, and pain intensity) were identified related to prognosis. A risk-adjusted EWMA control chart was constructed and showed that GEM-E did improve OS in a few patients. Three biomarkers (BMP2, CXCL6, and HER2) were identified as predictive biomarkers based on maximum selected rank test, and using the risk-adjusted EWMA control chart to validate the reality and discover some patients who are sensitive to the GEM-E therapy. Conclusion: In reality, GEM-E has not shown a significant advantage over GEM in the treatment of pancreatic cancer. However, we discovered some patients who are sensitive to the GEM-E therapy based on the predictive biomarkers, which suggest that the predictive biomarkers provide ideas for personalized medicine in pancreatic cancer.
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 | 0.005 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".