Treatment Innovations in Pancreatic Cancer: Putting Patient Priorities First
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Pancreatic adenocarcinoma remains one of the most aggressive and difficult-to-treat solid tumor malignancies, with a high mortality-to-incidence ratio. Globally, pancreatic cancer ranks 12th in terms of incidence but sixth for mortality signifying its aggressive behavior and limited treatment options. While the mortality rates for many other solid tumors have substantially improved over the past few decades, temporal trends in pancreatic cancer mortality rates are quite sobering. In the United States, from 2000 to 2020, the mortality rates from pancreatic cancer have increased, whereas at the same time, mortality rates from other cancers, such as lung, colorectal, or kidney, have fallen appreciably. Is this for lack of treatment innovation? How do we improve survival for patients with pancreatic cancer? In this chapter, we discuss the recent advances and future directions with targeted therapies and immunotherapies in the treatment of pancreatic cancer, and provide the reasons for both optimism and caution for the future of systemic treatment of 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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.011 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
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".