Reply to U. Dührsen et al
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In their letter, Duhrsen et al disagree with our conclusion that in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, the presence of tumor cells in blood or bone marrow, as detected by BCL2/IgH major break point region (MBR) polymerase chain reaction (PCR) at the end of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone induction therapy, is not predictive of progression-free survival (PFS). Their major argument is that we have compared inappropriate groups because the BCL2/IgH MBR–negative group might have contained patients with tumor cells in blood or bone marrow that have escaped detection because they have t(14;18) with a break point outside the MBR. On the basis of cited literature, they mention that up to 50% of t(14;18) patients have break points outside the MBR, whereas in fact, this figure is 32%. Nevertheless, regardless of the exact frequency of BCL2/ IgHMBRpositivityamongpatientswitht(14;18), intheDiscussionofour article, we already have addressed rather extensively the issue raised by Duhrsen et al. At present, we are in the process of performing an additional minor break point region PCR analysis to further corroborate our conclusions. However, when we restricted our analysis to the group with initial BCL2/IgH MBR–positive results in blood and/or bone marrow, we found no difference in PFS between patients who converted from PCR positive to PCR negative and patients who remained PCR positive. This was true for both bone marrow and peripheral blood. This observation, which was mentioned in our article under Results, strongly supports the conclusion that in patients with relapsed or refractory follicular lymphoma, the BCL2/IgH status in peripheral blood and bone marrow at the end of rituximab plus cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, vincristine, and prednisone induction therapy is not predictive for PFS.
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 | 0.005 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.042 | 0.050 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.006 |
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".