<i>BCR/ABL</i> level at 6 months identifies good risk CML subgroup after failing early molecular response at 3 months following imatinib therapy for CML in chronic phase
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is unclear if patients with CML treated with imatinib who fail to achieve BCR/ABL transcript levels <10%(IS) at 3 months i.e. an early molecular response (EMR) have a better prognosis if they achieve a response by 6 months. We reviewed 320 patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) in chronic phase receiving Imatinib therapy with 3 and 6 month BCR/ABL transcript levels available, and divided them into four groups. Group I (achieved an EMR at 3 months), Group II (did not achieve an EMR at 3 months, but achieved a transcript level of <1% at 6 months), Group III (did not achieve an EMR at 3 months, then at 6 months achieved a level between 1% and 10%) and Group IV (failed to achieve a response at 3 and 6 months). Compared to Group I, Group IV showed significantly worse freedom from treatment failure (FTF; 93.1% vs 69.0%, P < 0.001), progression free survival (97.7% vs 77.3%, P < 0.001) and overall survival (98.3% vs 78.9%, P < 0.001). While, group III showed inferior PFS (98.3% vs 90.4%, P = 0.013) and OS (97.7% vs 90.4%, P = 0.037), but no difference in FTF (93.1% vs 92.0%, P = 0.520). There were no significant differences between Groups I and II. A BCR/ABL transcript level at 6 months can identify a "good-risk" subgroup among patients who fail to achieve an EMR on Imatinib therapy for CML.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".