CHOP-R therapy overcomes the adverse prognostic influence of BCL-2 expression in diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BCL-2 protein expression correlates with shorter survival in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL) who are treated with CHOP chemotherapy. We report a retrospective analysis of the prognostic significance of BCL-2 status in patients who received CHOP with the addition of rituximab (CHOP-R) for DLBCL. Patients over 15 years of age with de novo, HIV negative DLBCL, without CNS involvement, and known BCL-2 protein status were identified from the BCCA Lymphoid Cancer Database. BCL-2 tumour positivity was defined as over 50% of tumour cells with BCL-2 protein expression. 140 patients who received CHOP-R were analysed. The majority (59%) of patients were over 60 years of age. Disease stage distribution was limited (22%) and advanced (78%). BCL-2 protein expression was observed in 90 (64%) cases. IPI score was similar in both BCL-2 positive and negative cases. Median follow-up time for living patients is 40 months. BCL-2 status did not predict for either progression-free or overall survival. IPI score was predictive for progression-free survival but not overall survival. The addition of rituximab to CHOP chemotherapy negates the adverse prognostic influence of BCL-2 protein expression on progression free and overall survival 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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 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".