Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reimbursement reviews are comprehensive assessments of the clinical effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, as well as patient and clinician perspectives, of a drug or drug class. The assessments inform nonbinding recommendations that help guide the reimbursement decisions of Canada’s federal, provincial, and territorial governments, with the exception of Quebec. This review assesses abemaciclib (VERZENIO), 50 mg, 100 mg, 150 mg oral tablets. Indication: VERZENIO is indicated in both early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer or metastatic breast cancer. In the advanced breast cancer or metastatic breast cancer setting the following indications were issued NOC by Health Canada on April 5, 2019: VERZENIO (abemaciclib) is indicated for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer as follows: in combination with an aromatase inhibitor in post-menopausal women as initial endocrine-based therapy; in combination with fulvestrant in women with disease progression following endocrine therapy. Pre- or perimenopausal women must also be treated with a gonadotropin-releasing hormone agonist; as a single agent in women with disease progression following endocrine therapy and at least 2 prior chemotherapy regimens. At least 1 chemotherapy regimen should have been administered in the metastatic setting, and at least 1 should have contained a taxane.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".