Clinical profile and treatment outcome of older (>75 years) patients with systemic AL amyloidosis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic AL amyloidosis, a disease with improving outcomes using novel therapies, is increasingly recognized in the elderly but treatment and outcomes have not been systematically studied in this group of patients in whom comorbidities and frailty may compound morbidity and mortality. We report the outcomes of 295 patients with systemic AL amyloidosis ≥75 years seen at the UK National Amyloidosis Centre from 2005-2012. The median age was 78.5 years. The median overall survival was 20 months. Two hundred and thirty-eight patients received chemotherapy and 57 elected for supportive care only (overall survival - 24 and 8.4 months, respectively). On intention-to-treat analysis, 44% achieved a hematologic response including a very good partial response or better in 23%. The median overall survival was 6.2 years in patients achieving very good partial response or better at the 6-month landmark analysis and 1.5 years in non-responders. Factors independently indicating a poor prognosis were: cardiac involvement, performance status ≥2; systolic blood pressure <100 mmHg and, on landmark analysis, achieving less than a very good partial response. Treatment of systemic AL amyloidosis in the elderly is challenging. Deep clonal responses are associated with excellent survival and organ responses. Achieving a response to the first-line regimen appears particularly important as outcomes of non-responders are similar to those of untreated patients. Prospective trials with lower toxicity, outpatient treatment regimens are needed.
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 | 0.000 | 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 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".