National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: V. The 2014 Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care Working Group Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The 2006 National Institutes of Health (NIH) Consensus paper presented recommendations by the Ancillary Therapy and Supportive Care Working Group to support clinical research trials in chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). Topics covered in that inaugural effort included the prevention and management of infections and common complications of chronic GVHD, as well as recommendations for patient education and appropriate follow-up. Given the new literature that has emerged during the past 8 years, we made further organ-specific refinements to these guidelines. Minimum frequencies are suggested for monitoring key parameters relevant to chronic GVHD during systemic immunosuppressive therapy and, thereafter, referral to existing late effects consensus guidelines is advised. Using the framework of the prior consensus, the 2014 NIH recommendations are organized by organ or other relevant systems and graded according to the strength and quality of supporting evidence.
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 | 0.348 | 0.465 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.016 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.021 | 0.014 |
| Research integrity | 0.019 | 0.028 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".