MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W6958538041 · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.12420932

Tucatinib: First Approval

2020· other· en· W6958538041 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2020
Typeother
Languageen
FieldDecision Sciences
TopicScientific Computing and Data Management
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDrug approvalBreast cancerDrug industryPeer reviewHuman useEthical issues

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b>Compliance with Ethical Standards</b> <b>Funding</b> The preparation of this review was not supported by any external funding. <b>Conflict of interest</b><b><i> </i></b><b> </b>During the peer review process the manufacturer of the agent under review was offered an opportunity to comment on the article. Changes resulting from any comments received were made by the authors on the basis of scientific completeness and accuracy. Arnold Lee is a salaried employee of Adis International Ltd/Springer Nature, is responsible for the article content and declares no relevant conflicts of interest.<br>Additional information about this Adis Drug Review can be found <b>here</b><br><b>Abstract </b> Tucatinib is an oral, small molecule, selective HER2 inhibitor initially developed by Array BioPharma (a subsidiary of Pfizer) and subsequently developed by Seattle Genetics for the treatment of HER2-positive solid tumours, including breast cancer and colorectal cancer. Tucatinib was approved in the USA in April 2020 and in Switzerland in May 2020 for the treatment of HER2-positive breast cancer, and is pending regulatory review in the EU, Australia, Canada and Singapore. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of tucatinib leading to this first approval in patients with advanced unresectable or metastatic HER2-positive breast cancer.<br>

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.661
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.8800.220

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 head0.302
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.087 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicScientific Computing and Data ManagementFrench-language works237,207