MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2095913486 · doi:10.3324/haematol.2010.025338

Prognostic factors identified three risk groups in the LRF CLL4 trial, independent of treatment allocation

2010· article· en· W2095913486 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueHaematologica · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsInstitute of Cancer Research
FundersNational Cancer Research InstituteCancer Research Institute
KeywordsIGHV@Internal medicineRandomizationOncologyRandomized controlled trialMedicineBeta-2 microglobulinChronic lymphocytic leukemiaRelative riskProgression-free survivalOverall survivalLeukemiaConfidence interval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Many prognostic markers have been identified in chronic lymphocytic leukemia, but there have been few opportunities to assess their relative importance in a large randomized trial. The aim of this study was to determine which of the available markers independently predicted outcome in patients requiring treatment and to use these to define new risk groups. DESIGN AND METHODS: A broad panel of clinical and laboratory markers, measured at randomization in patients entering the LRF CLL4 trial, was assessed with respect to treatment response, progression-free and overall survival, at a median follow-up of 68 months. RESULTS: Using the factors identified as independent predictors for progression-free survival, patients were subdivided into three risk groups: 6% had poor risk with known TP53 loss of greater than 10%; 72% had an intermediate risk without TP53 loss (≤ 10%) and with at least one of: unmutated IGHV genes and/or IGHV3-21 usage, 11q deletion, β-2 microglobulin greater than 4 mg/L; 22% had a good risk (with none of the above and mutated IGHV genes). The 5-year progression-free survival rates for these three groups were 0%, 12% and 34%, respectively, and the corresponding 5-year overall survival rates were 9%, 53% and 79% (both P<0.00005 independent of treatment allocation). In the intermediate risk group 250 patients, with data for all three risk factors, were further subdivided into intermediate-low (one risk factor) or intermediate-high (2 or 3 risk factors). The 5-year progression-free survival rates were 18% and 7% (P=0.0001) and the 5-year overall survival rates were 68% and 40% (P<0.00005), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the role of biomarkers in prognosis and shows that, in patients requiring treatment, disease stage may no longer be an independent predictor of outcome. If validated independently, the risk groups defined here may inform the design of future trials in chronic lymphocytic leukemia.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.195
Threshold uncertainty score0.399

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.329
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it