MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407918416 · doi:10.1080/14796694.2025.2466416

Advancing real-world research in thoracic malignancies: learnings from the international I-O Optimise initiative

2025· review· en· W4407918416 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Søren Paaske Johnsen, Jens Benn Sørensen, Christos Chouaid, Frank Griesinger, M. Daumont, C. Rault, Gabrielle Emanuel, John R. Penrod, H.C. Jacobs, Maha Muwaffak, Minouk J. Schoemaker, Robin Munro, Isabelle Durand‐Zaleski, John C. O’Donnell

Bibliographic record

VenueFuture Oncology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBristol-Myers Squibb
KeywordsMedicineReal world dataLung cancerClinical trialMesotheliomaImmunotherapyIntensive care medicineOncologyCancerInternal medicinePathologyData science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In recent years, the thoracic malignancies treatment landscape has become more complex with the emergence of novel targeted and immunotherapy-based treatments. Although beneficial to patients and physicians, this fast-paced therapeutic evolution has increased the complexity of clinical decision-making and amplified the importance of real-world evidence to support data from randomized controlled trials. The international I-O Optimise initiative was established in 2016 to provide real-world insights into the thoracic malignancies treatment landscape, and has since collaborated with 14 data sources across Europe and Canada, allowing access to data from ~ 500,000 patients with non-small-cell lung cancer, small-cell lung cancer, and malignant pleural mesothelioma. This article reviews pertinent I-O Optimise research, with discussion of the methodological/data-related learnings and expectations for future insights.

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)0.001
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: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.930
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.108
GPT teacher head0.502
Teacher spread0.394 · 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 designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations3
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFuture OncologySame topicLung Cancer Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207