Expanded safety experience with lenalidomide plus dexamethasone in relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Lenalidomide gained Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval for treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma (MM) in combination with dexamethasone in June 2006. In April 2005, the FDA and patient advocacy groups requested an expanded access programme to both provide lenalidomide to patients likely to benefit and obtain additional safety information. Relapsed/refractory MM patients received lenalidomide 25 mg/d (days 1-21) and dexamethasone 40 mg/d (days 1-4, 9-12, and 17-20 of cycles 1-4; days 1-4 only from cycle 5 onwards), in 4-week cycles until disease progression, study drug discontinuation, or lenalidomide approval. Of the 1438 patients enrolled, approximately 60% were male, median age was 64 years, and 61.7% had Durie-Salmon stage III disease. Median time on study was 15.4 weeks (range: 0.1-49.1) and median dose was 25 mg. The most common adverse events (AEs) were haematological (49%), gastrointestinal (59%), and fatigue (55%). The most common grade > or =3 AEs were haematological (45%), fatigue (10%), and pneumonia (7%). The most common serious AEs were pneumonia (8%), pyrexia (4%), and deep-vein thrombosis (3%). Primary cause of death was disease progression (10%). Safety data confirmed known AEs of lenalidomide plus dexamethasone therapy in patients with relapsed/refractory MM.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".