Alkaline phosphatase variation during carfilzomib treatment is associated with best response in multiple myeloma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ubiquitin-proteasome pathway regulates bone formation through osteoblast differentiation. We analyzed variation alkaline phosphatase (ALP) during carfilzomib treatment. Data from 38 patients enrolled in the PX-171-003 and 29 patients in PX-171-004 studies, for patients with relapsed/refractory myeloma, were analyzed. All patients received 20 mg/m(2) of carfilzomib on Days 1, 2, 8, 9, 15, and 16 of a 28-day cycle. Sixty-seven patients from ALP data were evaluable. In PX-171-003, the ORR (>PR) was 18% and the clinical benefit response (CBR; >MR) was 26%, while in PX-171-004, the ORR was 35.5% overall and 57% in bortezomib-naive patients. ALP increment from baseline was statistically different in patients who achieved ≥ VGPR compared with all others on Days 1 (P = 0.0049) and 8 (P = 0.006) of Cycle 2. In patients achieving a VGPR or better, ALP increased more than 15 units per liter at Cycle 2 Day 1 over baseline. An ALP increase over the same period of time was seen in 26%, 13% and 11% of patients achieving PR, MR, and SD, respectively. This retrospective analysis of patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma treated with single-agent carfilzomib indicates that early elevation in ALP is associated with subsequent myeloma response.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".