Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) recommends that Verzenio plus fulvestrant be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of hormone receptor (HR)–positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer in combination with fulvestrant for patients with disease progression following endocrine therapy if certain conditions are met. Verzenio plus fulvestrant should only be covered to treat adults with HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer with disease progression following endocrine therapy. Verzenio plus fulvestrant should not be covered for patients who have previously received cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4 or CDK6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting, more than 1 line of chemotherapy or more than 1 line of endocrine therapy, or treatment with fulvestrant. Verzenio plus fulvestrant should only be reimbursed if prescribed under the care of clinicians with expertise in the treatment of advanced breast cancer, and if the cost of Verzenio for the indicated population does not exceed the drug program cost of treatment with ribociclib, both in combination with fulvestrant.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.049 | 0.017 |
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".