MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Metadata record for the manuscript: Glembatumumab vedotin for patients with metastatic, gpNMB over-expressing, triplenegative breast cancer (“METRIC”): A Randomized Multicenter Study

2021· dataset· en· W6976907216 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueFigshare · 2021
Typedataset
Languageen
FieldArts and Humanities
TopicLinguistic research and analysis
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBreast cancerCapecitabineMetadataTable (database)Clinical trialMulticenter studyDeclarationRandomized controlled trial

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

<b>Summary</b> 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). <b>Data access</b> 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.<br> 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 <b>Name of Institutional Review Board or ethics committee that approved the study </b> 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. <b>Clinical trial registry URL</b> https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01997333?term=NCT#01997333&amp;draw=2&amp;rank=1 <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)0.009
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow), Scholarly communication, Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Dataset · Consensus signal: Dataset
Teacher disagreement score0.153
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.009
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.1540.000

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 head0.068
GPT teacher head0.321
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreDataset

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
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFigshareSame topicLinguistic research and analysisFrench-language works237,207