Metadata record for the manuscript: Glembatumumab vedotin for patients with metastatic, gpNMB over-expressing, triplenegative breast cancer (“METRIC”): A Randomized Multicenter Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary This metadata record provides details of the data supporting the claims of the related manuscript: “Glembatumumab vedotin for patients with metastatic, gpNMB over-expressing, triplenegative breast cancer (“METRIC”): A Randomized Multicenter Study”. The related study evaluated whether glembatumumab vedotin (a gpNMB-specific monoclonal antibody conjugated to the potent cytotoxin monomethyl auristatin E) would improve progression-free survival compared to capecitabine in gpNMB-overexpressing triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). Data access The data are are available from the company which funded the study--Celldex Therapeutics, Inc (https://www.celldex.com/)--on reasonable request for a period of 3 years following publication. After this period Celldex does not commit to making the data available as the compound has been discontinued from development. The data, along with details of the figures and tables in the manuscript that they underlie, are as follows: Figure 2: CDX011-04_ADEF.sas; CDX011-04_ADEFI.sas; CDX011-04_ADTTE.sas Figure 3: CDX011-04_ADEF.sas; CDX011-04_ADEFI.sas Figure 4: CDX011-04_ADEFI.sas; CDX011-04_ADTTE.sas Table 1: CDX011-04_ADSL.sas; CDX011-04_ADMH.sas Table 2: CDX011-04_ADEF.sas; CDX011-04_ADEFI.sas; CDX011-04_ADTTE.sas Table 3: CDX011-04_RawPK.xls Table 4: CDX011-04_ADAE.sas Supplemental Table 1: CDX011-04_ADCM.sas Supplemental Table 2: CDX011-04_ADEF.sas; CDX011-04_ADEFI.sas; CDX011-04_ADTTE.sas For all data requests please contact Celldex at: info@celldex.com Name of Institutional Review Board or ethics committee that approved the study The study was conducted at 120 sites in the United States, Canada, Australia, United Kingdom, France, Spain, Belgium, Germany, and Italy. The study was conducted at each of the participating institutions according to the Declaration of Helsinki and Good Clinical Practice Guidelines, after approval by local institutional/ethics review boards. Clinical trial registry URL https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01997333?term=NCT#01997333&draw=2&rank=1
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 | 0.010 | 0.100 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.714 | 0.318 |
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".