Primary care management of early stage chronic lymphocytic leukaemia is safe and effective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Chronic lymphocytic leukaemia (CLL) is the commonest leukaemia in western society. Most patients are detected incidentally at an early stage and require 'watch and wait' follow-up. In the UK, management of Stage A0 CLL varies with some centres advising regular outpatient haematology follow-up, whereas others recommend management within primary care. The safety and effectiveness of these two management options are currently unknown. METHODS: An observational retrospective cohort study in outpatient Haematology clinics at Queen Elizabeth Hospital Birmingham (QEH) and Birmingham Heartlands Hospital (BHH) and primary care practices in West Midlands, UK. All patients diagnosed with stable stage A0 CLL since 2002 at BHH or QEH were identified. At BHH, patients were discharged to primary care follow-up, whilst QEH patients remained under haematology for follow-up. Evidence of disease progression, need for treatment and overall mortality was documented. RESULTS: Two hundred and forty-six Stage A0 CLL patients were identified. One hundred and five (43%) patients were discharged to primary care, whilst 141 (57%) patients were followed up in haematology outpatient clinics. No difference in mortality or need for treatment was found between the two groups. Of those discharged, 93 (66%) remained in primary care. CONCLUSION: The management of stable-stage A0 CLL within primary or secondary care leads to equivalent clinical outcomes. The prevalence of early-stage CLL is expected to increase with the ageing population and management within primary care should be considered as a potentially effective approach.
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 | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 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".