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.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.005 |
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".