Diffuse Large B-cell Lymphoma: A Clinicopathologic Analysis of 444 Cases Classified According to the Updated Kiel Classification
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was: to compare the survival of diffuse large B-cell lymphomas (DLBCL) stratified according to the up-dated Kiel classification. A retrospective study of a cohort of 1378 cases was organized in 1996 by the Non-Hodgkin's Lymphoma Classification Project, and the DLBCL were classified according to the updated Kiel classification. The distribution of the different types and subtypes was as follows: centroblastic (CB, 85.4%), composed of the polymorphic (CB-PM, 58.6%), monomorphic (CB-MM, 17.1%) and multilobated (CB-ML, 9.7%) subtypes; immunoblastic (IB, 11.2%), with (8.3%) or without (2.9%) plasmacytoid differentiation; and anaplastic large cell lymphoma (ALCL) of B-cell type (3.4%). The rate of diagnostic agreement between pathologists was 78% for CB and 65% for IB lymphoma. The 5-year overall survival (OAS) for the entire group was 47% and the 5-year failure-free survival (FFS) was 42%. No significant differences in survival were found between the three major groups (CB, IB, ALCL). However, the 5-year OAS and FFS of patients with DLBCL not containing immunoblasts (CB-MM+CB-ML) was 51 and 52%, respectively, and was significantly better than the survival of those containing immunoblasts (CB-PM+IB+ALCL), which was 44 and 38% (p = 0.06 and p = 0.037), respectively. These results did not appear to be due to differences in the clinical features of the two groups, and was most significant for patients with low stage or low risk disease. However, histologic subtyping was not an independent risk factor for the entire group by multivariate analysis. In conclusion, patients with CB-MM and CB-ML (without immunoblasts) had a significantly better OAS and FFS than those with CB-PM, IB and ALCL (with immunoblasts). Therefore, we conclude that additional studies are still needed to further evaluate the importance of immunoblastic differentiation in DLBCL.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".