Standard therapy of advanced Hodgkin lymphoma
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABVD (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine and dacarbazine) continues to be the standard of care for patients with advanced-stage Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Consolidation of primary chemotherapy with radiation or autologous stem cell transplantation (ASCT) has not demonstrated an improvement in overall survival in randomized controlled trials. Regimens such as escalated BEACOPP have more acute and late toxicities and survival benefits have yet to be confirmed. Despite effective therapy, ultimately 30% to 40% of patients with advanced HL will relapse. ASCT has become the standard of care for patients with relapsed or refractory HL based on two randomized trials. The optimal salvage chemotherapy and high dose therapy regimen are not known. Similarly, non-ASCT strategies including salvage radiotherapy or non-ASCT chemotherapy strategies have been reported and have a potential role in selected clinical scenarios. This review summarizes recent clinical trial results in the initial treatment of advanced HL and will focus on second-line treatment strategies for patients with relapsed or refractory disease.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 it