Mcl‐1 and Bcl‐2/Bax ratio are associated with treatment response but not with Rai stage in B‐cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although both Bcl-2/Bax ratio and Mcl-1 have been identified to be of clinical relevance in B-cell chronic lymphocytic leukemia (CLL), there is controversy regarding their role; further, their relative importance is not well delineated. Expression of Bcl-2, Bax, the Bcl-2/Bax ratio, and Mcl-1 in 51 consecutive previously untreated CLL patients and 16 controls was determined by Western blotting. Only 37 patients were treated, all with chlorambucil and prednisone initially. Six patients achieved complete response (CR), 14 were non-responders (NR), and 17 had a partial response (PR), as defined by NCI criteria. There was considerable inter-patient variability in protein expression and overlap with healthy volunteers (P > 0.05). All patients with CR had low Mcl-1 levels compared to the PR + NR group (0.07 +/- 0.02 vs. 0.14 +/- 0.07, P = 0.043). Higher Mcl-1 expression as determined by dichotomizing the data was associated with a failure to achieve CR (P = 0.021). The Bcl-2/Bax ratio was significantly associated with treatment response only when CR and PR were considered together (0.89 +/- 0.53 [CR + PR] vs. 3.38 +/- 4.47 [NR], P = 0.0118). There was no association with Rai stage. Low Mcl-1 appears to be a requirement for CR, while low Bcl-2/Bax ratio is indicative of some response to conventional treatment.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".