The treatment of pediatric Philadelphia positive (Ph+) leukemias in the imatinib era
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: As the treatment of Philadelphia positive (Ph+) leukemias in the era of imatinib continues to evolve, the role of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allogeneic-HCT) in first remission is becoming more unclear. PROCEDURE: Thirty-two pediatric centers across the United States and Canada were surveyed regarding current treatment practices for Ph+ acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) and chronic myelogenous leukemia (CML). The survey addressed treatment approaches for Ph+ ALL and CML in terms of imatinib therapy and use of allogeneic-HCT. RESULTS: Twenty-three of the 32 centers returned the survey to provide a 72% response rate. Of the 27 physicians responding to the survey, 22 (81%) recommended a matched sibling donor (MSD) allogeneic-HCT, when available, in first remission for Ph+ ALL compared to 17/27 (63%) for patients with first chronic phase CML. There was universal agreement among survey responders regarding the use of imatinib upfront in Ph+ ALL and CML patients while 13 of 27 (48%) physicians reported using imatinib as maintenance therapy post-HCT for Ph+ ALL compared to 9 of 27 (33%) for CML. CONCLUSIONS: Although a treatment consensus did not exist based on the results of this small survey, current treatment practices for pediatric Ph+ ALL and CML appear to favor allogeneic-HCT when a MSD is available. The use of post-HCT imatinib as maintenance therapy to avoid relapse for either Ph+ ALL or CML remains uncertain and awaits future prospective studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".