Primary tumor sidedness and benefit from FOLFOXIRI plus bevacizumab as initial therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer. Retrospective analysis of the TRIBE trial by GONO

Right-sided metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) patients have poor prognosis and achieve limited benefit from first-line doublets plus a targeted agent. In this unplanned analysis of the TRIBE study, we investigated the prognostic and predictive impact of primary tumor sidedness in mCRC patients and the differential impact of the intensification of the chemotherapy in subgroups defined according to both primary tumor sidedness and RAS and BRAF mutational status

Amazon and Platform Antitrust

With its decision in Ohio v. American Express, the U.S. Supreme Court for the first time embraced the recently developed, yet increasingly prolific, concept of the two-sided platform. Through advances in technology, platforms, which serve as intermediaries allowing two groups to transact, are increasingly ubiquitous, and many of the biggest tech companies operate in this fashion. Amazon Marketplace, for example, provides a platform for third-party vendors to sell directly to consumers through Amazon’s web and mobile interfaces. At the same time that platforms and their scholarship have evolved, a burgeoning antitrust movement has also developed which focuses on the impact of the dominance of these tech companies and the fear that current antitrust laws are ill-equipped to prevent any potential anticompetitive behavior. Many of those who feel this way worried that American Express, which decided whether a plaintiff alleging anticompetitive behavior by a two- sided platform would have to show harm to both sides of the market to make a prima facie case, would give companies like Amazon even more power. This Note argues that while the case could be interpreted in such a way, because Amazon and similarly situated platforms possess a great degree of control over their users—in some cases competing with them directly—it would be unwise to do so

Lessons from \u3ci\u3eAmex\u3c/i\u3e for Platform Antitrust Litigation

I. Introduction II. A Brief History of a Long Litigation ... A. The District Court Rules for Plaintiffs Based on a One-Sided Market Definition ... B. The Second Circuit Reverses, Applying a Two-Sided Market Definition ... C. The Supreme Court Affirms, Embracing a Two-Sided Market Definition III. Lessons from Amex ... A. Lesson One: A Full Rule of Reason Analysis—Not Some Form of Relaxed Review Advocated by the Government—Applies to Vertical Agreements Between a Platform and Customers on One Side of the Platform ... B. Lesson Two: For That Rule of Reason Analysis, a Plaintiff First Must Define a Relevant Market That Includes Both Sides of Two-Sided Transaction Platforms C. Lesson Three: When the Relevant Market Is Two-Sided, a Plaintiff Must Demonstrate That the Challenged Conduct Harmed Competition in the Market as a Whole IV. Misperceptions About Amex ... A. Fallacy One: Two-Sided Market Definition Does Not Apply to “Mature” Platforms ... B. Fallacy Two: A Platform’s Conduct Should Be Condemned If Platform Consumers on One Side Are “Subsidized” by Those Who Do Not Use the Platform … C. Fallacy Three: Amex Will Complicate and Confuse Antitrust Analysis in a Wide Range of Case

Is This Review Believable? A Study of Factors Affecting the Credibility of Online Consumer Reviews from an ELM Perspective

With the ever-increasing popularity of online consumer reviews, understanding what makes an online review believable has attracted increased attention from both academics and practitioners. Drawing on the elaboration likelihood model (ELM), this study examines four information cues used to evaluate the credibility of online reviews: Argument quality, source credibility, review consistency, and review sidedness, under different levels of involvement and expertise. We conducted an online survey that involved users of Epinions.com, a popular online consumer review website, to test the research model empirically. Consistent with previous research, the results reveal that argument quality, a central cue, was the primary factor affecting review credibility. Participants also relied on peripheral cues such as source credibility, review consistency, and review sidedness when evaluating online consumer reviews. Review sidedness had a stronger impact on review credibility when the recipient had a low involvement level and a high expertise level. However, the other interaction effects were not significant. We discuss the theoretical and practical implications of these results

The Gender Differences in the Effect of Two-sidedness E-WOM Presentation Order on Product Attitude

In the Internet environment, electronic word-of mouth plays an important role in affecting consumers’ attitude toward product and service. However, there exists a widespread situation that consumers may receive two-sidedness e-WOM (An e-WOM has both positive and negative message about the same object), and past research has shown that gender differences and situational involvement affect consumers’ perception of e-WOM. This article demonstrates how presentation order of two-sidedness electronic word-of-mouth and gender influence in consumers’ perception and attitude toward product under different situations. Our study found that two-sidedness e-WOM presentation order and gender influenced product attitude: under low-involvement situation, males (females) exhibited primacy (recency)effects when receiving a two-sidedness e-WOM which containing both positive and negative messages about product. Under high-involvement situation, all respondents appeared to process two-sidedness e-WOM systematically and consider more relevant information in their evaluations. The result revealed that females continued to exhibit recency effects, but the primacy effects with males disappeared, they will exhibit obvious recency effects