How to define intermediate stage in Hodgkin's lymphoma?
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Intermediate or unfavourable stage Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) definition relies upon at least three different scoring systems defined by cooperative groups (EORTC, GHSG and Canadian-ECOG). We aimed to investigate their efficacy and their correlation with International Prognostic Score (IPS) for advanced HL. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We studied a population of 1156 patients with localized stage HL treated prospectively within GELA centres in H8 (518 patients) and H9 (638 patients) protocols. Median age: 30 yr, 18%, Female 50%; stage I: 25%; stage II: 75%. According to scoring systems 70% had 0-1 EORTC factors; 60% 0-1 GHSG factors and 82% 0-1 Canadian factors. The IPS for advanced stages was available only in H9 study with 64% 0-1 factor. RESULTS: Survival curves according to each of the different scoring systems could significantly discriminate the subgroup populations. When a multivariate Cox analysis was performed for overall survival (OS) including all the scoring system variables: age > 45 yr, sex male, Haemoglobin < 10.5 g/dL, lymphocytes < 600/microL, B symptoms with elevated ESR, extra nodal sites did retain an independent significant value. Probability of OS was 99%, 98%, 92%, 82% and 73% for patients with 1-5 factors, respectively P < 0.0001. CONCLUSION: These factors are similar for most of them with those described in the IPS when stages III and IV are replaced by extra nodal localization. This new score should be validated in other prospective trials, as it will simplify the Hodgkin prognostic scoring systems for localized and advanced stages.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it