Classical Hodgkin's lymphoma: the Lymphoma Study Association guidelines for relapsed and refractory adult patients eligible for transplant
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Hodgkin's Lymphoma Committee of the Lymphoma Study Association (LYSA) gathered in 2012 to prepare guidelines on the management of transplant-eligible patients with relapsing or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma. The working group is made up of a multidisciplinary panel of experts with a significant background in Hodgkin's lymphoma. Each member of the panel of experts provided an interpretation of the evidence and a systematic approach to obtain consensus was used. Grades of recommendation were not required since levels of evidence are mainly based on phase II trials or standard practice. Data arising from randomized trials are emphasized. The final version was endorsed by the scientific council of the LYSA. The expert panel recommends a risk-adapted strategy (conventional treatment, or single/double transplantation and/or radiotherapy) based on three risk factors at progression (primary refractory disease, remission duration < 1 year, stage III/IV), and an early evaluation of salvage chemosensitivity, including (18)fluorodeoxy glucose-positron emission tomography interpreted according to the Deauville scoring system. Most relapsed or refractory Hodgkin's lymphoma patients chemosensitive to salvage should receive high-dose therapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation as standard. Efforts should be made to increase the proportion of chemosensitive patients by alternating non-cross-resistant chemotherapy lines or exploring the role of novel drugs.
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 | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".