MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1961840580 · doi:10.1089/jayao.2015.0038

Management of Adolescent Low-Risk Classical Hodgkin Lymphoma: Which Chemotherapy Backbone Gives the Best Chance of Omitting Radiotherapy Safely

2015· review· en· W1961840580 on OpenAlexaff
Ali H. Algiraigri, Mohammed F. Essa

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult Oncology · 2015
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineABVDRadiation therapyHodgkin lymphomaCure rateChemotherapyRandomized controlled trialLymphomaClinical trialHodgkin's lymphomaOncologyIntensive care medicineInternal medicineSurgeryCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Even though more than 90% of adolescents with low-risk classical Hodgkin lymphoma (LRcHL) will be cured with first-line therapy, many will suffer serious late toxic effects from radiotherapy (RT). The goals for care have shifted toward minimizing late toxic effects without compromising the outstanding cure rates by adapting a risk and response-based therapy. Recent published and ongoing randomized clinical trials, using functional imaging, may allow for better identification of those patients for whom RT may be safely omitted while maintaining excellent cure rates. To evaluate the best chemotherapy regimens with a reasonable toxicity profile and that are expected to have a high chance of omitting RT based on a response-directed therapy while maintaining high cure rates, a mini review was conducted of the recent clinical trials in pediatric and adult LRcHL. The UK RAPID trial chemotherapy backbone (3 × ABVD) followed by a response-based positron emission tomography scan offers up to a 75% chance of safely omitting RT without compromising the cure rate, which remained well above 90%.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.031
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.312 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Adolescent and Young Adult OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207