Evolution of Clinical and Molecular Responses to Bexarotene Treatment in Cutaneous T-Cell Lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The mechanisms of action of bexarotene are not well understood. METHODS: A retrospective study on patients with cutaneous T-cell lymphoma (CTCL) treated with bexarotene was performed to see if bexarotene could act on the dominant T-cell clones. Thirty-five patients were included. Twenty-three were treated with bexarotene for more than 3 months (300 mg/m(2)). In 7 patients, phototherapy was given with bexarotene. RESULTS: Dominant T-cell clones were observed in 11 patients in peripheral blood and in 19 patients in skin. Our results demonstrate no significant evolution of T-cell clones either in skin or peripheral blood. Furthermore, the detection of T-cell clones in peripheral blood before starting bexarotene was significantly associated with the progression of the disease. UV therapy given with bexarotene significantly improved therapeutic response without any correlation with T-cell clones. CONCLUSION: This is the first study on the evolution of the T-cell clone in blood and skin in CTCL patients during bexarotene therapy.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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".