Concordant but not discordant bone marrow involvement in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma predicts a poor clinical outcome independent of the International Prognostic Index
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL), previous studies have suggested that, while concordant bone marrow (BM) involvement confers a poor prognosis, discordant BM involvement does not. Whether this correlation is independent of the non-Hodgkin lymphoma International Prognostic Index (IPI) was previously unknown. We reviewed all DLBCL case histories from 1986 to 1997 at our center with complete staging, IPI data, and follow-up. A total of 55 (11.2%) of 489 patients had BM involvement, including 29 with concordant involvement and 26 with discordant involvement. The 55 patients with BM involvement had a poor prognosis compared with the uninvolved BM group (5-year overall survival [OS], 34.5% versus 46.9%; log-rank P = .019). However, concordant involvement portended a very poor prognosis (5-year OS, 10.3%; P < .001), whereas discordant involvement did not (5-year OS, 61.5%, P value nonsignificant). Compared with the discordant subset, the concordant subset patients were older, had a higher serum lactate dehydrogenase level, and a significantly higher IPI. However, the poor survival associated with concordant BM involvement was independent of the IPI score (P = .002, Cox regression). We conclude that in patients with DLBCL, concordant but not discordant BM involvement confers a very poor clinical outcome. Furthermore, concordant BM involvement is an independent adverse prognostic factor.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".