MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2002605588 · doi:10.1182/blood-2008-12-193458

Influence of cytogenetics in patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma treated with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone: adverse effect of deletion 17p13

2009· article· en· W2002605588 on OpenAlexaff
Donna Reece, Kevin Song, Tommy Fu, Birgitte Roland, Hong Chang, Douglas E. Horsman, Adnan Mansoor, Christine Chen, Esther Masih‐Khan, Young Trieu, Hélène Bruyèrè, Douglas A. Stewart, Nizar J. Bahlis

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsCalgary Laboratory ServicesBC Cancer AgencyUniversity of CalgaryVancouver General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsLenalidomideInternal medicineHazard ratioMultiple myelomaDexamethasoneMedicineGastroenterologyRegimenRefractory (planetary science)Adverse effectOncologySurgeryBiologyConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the combination of lenalidomide and dexamethasone is effective therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma, the influence of high-risk cytogenetic abnormalities on outcomes is unknown. This subanalysis of a large, open-label study investigated the effects of the most common unfavorable cytogenetic abnormalities detected by fluorescence in situ hybridization, del(13q), t(4;14), and del(17p13), in 130 evaluable patients treated with this regimen. Whereas patients with either del(13q) or t(4;14) experienced a median time to progression and overall survival comparable with those without these cytogenetic abnormalities, patients with del(17p13) had a significantly worse outcome, with a median time to progression of 2.22 months (hazard ratio, 2.82; P < .001) and median overall survival of 4.67 months (hazard ratio, 3.23; P < .001). Improved therapeutic strategies are required for this subgroup of patients. This study was registered at www.ClinicalTrials.gov as #NCT00179647.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.182
Threshold uncertainty score0.577

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.009
GPT teacher head0.255
Teacher spread0.246 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations184
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207