Clinical characteristics and early treatment outcomes of follicular lymphoma in young adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Follicular lymphoma (FL) in young adults (YA, <40 years old) is uncommon, and the clinical characteristics and outcomes of this group are not well defined. We conducted a retrospective database review of 427 patients with newly diagnosed FL aged 65 years or less registered at Princess Margaret Cancer Centre between 1995 and 2010. YA (n = 61) and those 40-65 (n = 366) were compared with regards to clinical stage at diagnosis, FL International Prognostic Index (FLIPI) score, and the following clinical outcomes: time to second treatment, cause-specific survival (CSS) and overall survival (OS). At diagnosis, stage and FLIPI score were similar, as were the proportion of patients requiring therapy (YA 75% versus older adults 71%). Median follow-up was 8.1 years. Time to second therapy was similar in both age groups (5-year probability 23% YA versus 27% older adults; Gray's P-value = 0.76). Ten-year OS was significantly higher for YA (87% versus older adults 72%; P = 0.029). On multivariate analysis, age <40 years, low FLIPI score and observation as initial management were favourable prognostic factors for OS and CSS. We conclude that YA with FL have a favourable prognosis compared to older patients; whether this reflects competing mortality risks or age-related differences in lymphoma biology warrants further investigation.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".