MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1990370347 · doi:10.3109/10428194.2014.963075

Incidence of pneumonitis in patients with non-Hodgkin lymphoma receiving chemoimmunotherapy with rituximab

2014· article· en· W1990370347 on OpenAlexaff
Giselle Salmasi, Michael Li, Vithika Sivabalasundaram, Tony Panzarella, Richard Tsang, Vishal Kukreti, Michael Crump, John Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueLeukemia & lymphoma/Leukemia and lymphoma · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineRituximabPrednisoneVincristineInternal medicineCHOPCyclophosphamideLymphomaChemoimmunotherapyGastroenterologyOfatumumabOncologyChemotherapySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rituximab is a monoclonal anti-CD20 antibody that is standard of care for treatment of B-cell non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL). The purpose of this study was to quantify the incidence of rituximab (R)-related interstitial pneumonitis (IP) in patients with NHL receiving immunochemotherapy. All patients with NHL who received cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine and prednisone (CHOP), cyclophosphamide, vincristine and prednisone (CVP), R-CHOP or R-CVP in Princess Margaret Hospital between June 1998 and August 2009 were retrospectively reviewed. We compared cohorts of patients who did and did not receive R and documented the incidence of IP during and/or post-treatment. In total 560 patients were included in this analysis. The rate of IP in the entire cohort was 2.9% (16/560) with a trend toward a higher rate in the R group (3.95% vs. 1.3% [odds ratio 3.1, 0.84-17.27, p = 0.074]). Baseline pulmonary computed tomography abnormalities in patients with lymphoma are relatively common. The addition of R to chemotherapy does not significantly increase the risk of symptomatic chemotherapy-related IP.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.310
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.004
GPT teacher head0.202
Teacher spread0.199 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations34
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeukemia & lymphoma/Leukemia and lymphomaSame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207