Follow-up of patients with Hodgkin's disease following curative treatment: the routine CT scan is of little value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A total of 10-40% of patients with Hodgkin's disease relapse following initial curative therapy. Intensive follow-up is resource intensive and may identify false relapses. We performed a retrospective review of all patients with Hodgkin's disease treated at our centre between 1990 and 1999 to evaluate the utility of the components of follow-up. A total of 107 patients met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The median age was 33 years and the median duration of follow-up 38 months. The total number of follow-up visits was 1209 and total number of CT scans 283. There were 109 suspected relapses of which 22 proved to be true relapses. Of the latter, 14 were identified clinically, six radiologically and two via lab testing. The routine CT scan detected only two relapses (9%), yet accounted for 29% of the total follow-up costs. Based on data from our centre, the cost per true relapse was $6000 US, 49% incurred by radiological tests. The majority of the cost of follow-up was incurred by routine follow-up (84%) as opposed to the investigation of suspected relapses (16%). We conclude that most true relapses are clinically symptomatic and that the routine CT is an expensive and inefficient mode of routine follow-up.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.000 | 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".