A multicenter study of gemcitabine-containing regimen in relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of this study was to assess the efficacy of a gemcitabine-containing regimen in pretreated Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) patients. Relapsed or refractory HL patients treated with gemcitabine, used alone or in combination with other cytotoxic agents, were retrospectively reviewed. Fifty-five patients were included in the study. Initial characteristics before gemcitabine administration were: Ann Arbor stage III-IV: 84%; International Prognostic Score less than 3 in 18/39 cases (46%); 31 primary refractory patients at the end of first-line therapy (56%); median number of previous chemotherapy regimens of 3. Twenty-nine patients received gemcitabine alone with a median maximal dose of 900 mg/m2 per injection (range: 300-1500 mg/m2). Gemcitabine was administered at a maximal dose of 1000 mg/m2 per injection (range: 650-1250) in combination with vinorelbine in 10 patients, oxaliplatin in 13 patients, and other drugs in three patients, with a median of six injections (range: 1-18). Reported toxicity was mainly hematologic. Overall response rate was 20% with 11% of complete remission. On univariate analysis, two adverse factors at progression were significant for response to gemcitabine-based regimen: stage III-IV disease and hemoglobin level was less than 10.5 g/dl. This study demonstrated the limited efficacy of gemcitabine-containing regimen in heavily pretreated HL patients.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".