A randomised comparison of melphalan with prednisone or dexamethasone as induction therapy and dexamethasone or observation as maintenance therapy in multiple myeloma: NCIC CTG MY.7
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The effectiveness of melphalan plus dexamethasone (M-Dex) with melphalan plus prednisone (MP) as induction therapy and dexamethasone with observation as maintenance therapy was compared in 585 older patients with multiple myeloma. Randomization to the M-Dex arm was stopped as a result of an analysis performed which met a predetermined event-related criterion. Of 466 patients randomised to MP or M-Dex, no differences were detected in the respective median progression-free survivals (PFS) [1.8 vs. 1.9 years; Hazard Ratio (HR) = 0.88, 95% CI 0.72-1.07; P = 0.2] or overall survivals (OS) (2.5 vs. 2.7 years; HR = 0.91, 95% CI 0.74-1.11; P = 0.3). Of the initial 585 patients, 292 remained evaluable for maintenance therapy. Patients randomised to maintenance dexamethasone had a superior median PFS (2.8 years vs. 2.1 years; HR = 0.61, 95% CI 0.47-0.79; P = 0.0002). No difference in median OS was detected (4.1 years vs. 3.8 years; HR = 0.88, 95% CI 0.65-1.18; P = 0.4). The maintenance therapy results were robust when analysed by using two additional methodologies. Dexamethasone did not improve clinical outcome when combined with melphalan during induction; maintenance dexamethasone improved PFS, but this did not translate into a detectable survival advantage.
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 | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".