New systemic treatment paradigms in advanced biliary tract cancer and variations in patient access across Europe
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, treatment options for patients with advanced biliary tract cancer (BTC) have increased significantly due to the positive results from phase 2/3 clinical trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors, combined with chemotherapy, and molecularly targeted agents. These advances have led to the need for molecular testing to identify actionable alterations and patients amenable to targeted therapies. However, these improvements have brought with them many questions and challenges, including the identification of resistance mechanisms and therapeutic sequences. In this Series paper we aim to provide an overview of the current systemic treatment options for patients with BTC, highlighting disparities in access to innovative treatments and molecular testing across European countries, which lead to inequalities in the possibilities of treating patients with advanced BTC. We also discuss how ongoing European collaborative projects, such as the COST Action Precision-BTC-Network CA22125, supported by COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology), linked to the European Network for the Study of Cholangiocarcinoma (ENSCCA), can help overcome these disparities and improve the current scenario.
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.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 it