Phase II study of three dose levels of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A.) in anaemic patients with aggressive non‐Hodgkin’s lymphoma receiving combination chemotherapy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Anaemia is a common complication in the treatment of patients with aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL), but there are no published data on the effect of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in such patients. This is the first open-label, phase II, dose-finding study to evaluate the efficacy and safety of continuous erythropoietin receptor activator (C.E.R.A.). Ninety-three anaemic patients with aggressive NHL who were receiving chemotherapy (including many advanced NHL, heavily pretreated patients) were randomised to receive 2.1, 4.2 or 6.3 microg/kg C.E.R.A. subcutaneously once every 3 weeks for 12 weeks. Haematopoietic response was achieved in 45%, 57% and 65% of patients at the respective dose level. During weeks 5-13, the mean haemoglobin changes from baseline in the intent-to-treat population were increases of 0.2, 2.4, and 5.7 g/l in the 2.1, 4.2, and 6.3 microg/kg treatment groups, respectively, and 4.4, 5.7 and 6.8 g/l in the per-protocol population at the respective dose levels. C.E.R.A. was generally well tolerated in all three groups. C.E.R.A. appeared to have dose-dependent clinical activity in most anaemic patients with aggressive NHL who were receiving chemotherapy.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".