Abstracts from the 28th Meeting of the Society of Clinical Trials, Montreal, May 20-23, 2007
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background \nSquamous cell carcinoma of the conjunctiva is a rare, slow-growing tumour of the eye, normally affecting elderly men around 70 years of age. In Africa, however, the disease is different. The incidence is rising rapidly, affecting young persons (around 35 years off age), and usually affecting women. It is more aggressive, with a mean history of three months at presentation. This pattern is related to the coexistence of the HIV/AIDS pandemic, high HPV exposure, and solar radiation in the region. Various interventions exist, but despite therapy, there is a high recurrence rate (up to 43%) and poor cosmetic results in late disease. This review was conducted to evaluate the interventions for treatment of conjunctival squamous cell carcinoma in HIV-infected individuals. \nObjectives To evaluate the effect of interventions for treating squamous cell carcinoma of the conjunctiva in HIV-infected individuals on local \ncontrol, recurrence, death, time to recurrence, and adverse events. Search strategy \nUsing a sensitive search strategy, we attempted to identify all relevant trials, regardless of language or publication status, from the following electronic databases; Medline/PubMed, CENTRAL, AIDSearch, EMBASE, LILACS, African Healthline, Cochrane HIV/AIDS Specialised Register, and the Cochrane Cancer Network Specialised Register. We searched the clinical trial register of the US National Institutes of Health, searched the international conference proceedings of AIDS and AIDS-related cancers, and contacted individual researchers, research organisations, and pharmaceutical companies that manufacture the drugs used as interventions. Searches were one between September 2005 and June 2006. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) involving HIV-infected individuals with ocular surface squamous neoplasia. Data collection and analysis We independently screened the results of the search to select potentially relevant studies and to retrieve the full articles.We independently applied the inclusion criteria to the potentially relevant studies. No studies were identi ed that ful lled the selection criteria.
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 | 0.042 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.009 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.151 | 0.032 |
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".