Development of adapted RECIST criteria to assess response in lymphoma and their comparison to the International Workshop Criteria
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
RECIST (response evaluation criteria in solid tumours) uses a unidimensional approach to tumour measurement and has been widely adopted for assessing the response rate of new therapies in solid tumour clinical trials. For lymphoma, the IWC (International Workshop Criteria), based on bidimensional product assessment, is generally utilised. We adapted RECIST for use in lymphoma and compared responses with the IWC in three Phase II lymphoma trials (n = 115). Measures of agreement estimated the concordance between the adapted RECIST and the IWC response assessments. A Pearson's coefficient estimated the correlation between changes in uni- and bidimensional measurements in a subset of patients (n = 75). All measures of agreement were very high [kappa = 0.86 (95% CI: 0.76 - 0.95), percent agreement 0.93 (95% CI: 0.87 - 0.97), positive agreement 0.90 (95% CI: 0.87 - 0.98), negative agreement 0.92 (95% CI: 0.89 - 0.98)]. Pearson's coefficient was 0.92 (95% CI: 0.87, 0.95). The lymphoma-adapted RECIST is simpler to apply than the IWC and yields near identical response rates. The adapted RECIST should be considered for inclusion into any new draft of the IWC.
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.
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 | 0.011 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 it