Toxicity and outcome of children with treatment related acute myeloid leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical course and outcome of children with treatment related acute myeloid leukemia (tAML) and compare them to children with primary AML (pAML). PROCEDURE: We retrospectively reviewed the demographic, treatment, toxicity, and outcome data of children with tAML and treatment related myelodysplastic syndrome (tMDS), treated at our institution between 1975 and 2005. We compared these parameters with matched controlled children with pAML. Finally we compared overall survival (OS) for tAML with all pAML children treated at the study era in our institution. RESULTS: Twenty-one patients with tAML (n = 19) and tMDS (n = 2) were identified. Three years event-free survival (EFS) and OS were both 14 +/- 8%. Compared to pAML patients, tAML had a higher rate of adverse cytogenetics (P < 0.008) and inferior OS (P = 0.027) but no significant difference in treatment toxicity or death. All survivors were treated with allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). CONCLUSIONS: In this population based report of pediatric tAML, outcome was poor and was related to a higher probability of poor cytogenetic features rather than excessive toxicities or inability to deliver therapy. HSCT should be considered for patients with tAML. These preliminary findings should set the stage for prospective cooperative studies.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".