MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2128705932 · doi:10.5430/jhm.v2n3p8

Comparison of long-term outcome of early versus late chronic phase imatinib receivers

2012· article· en· W2128705932 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Emel Gürkan, Semra Paydaş

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematological Malignancies · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Myeloid Leukemia Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImatinibMedicineImatinib mesylateInternal medicineMyeloid leukemiaRetrospective cohort studyOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The introduction of imatinib mesylate made a remarkable contribution to the management of patients with chronic myeloid leukemia. In this study, we assessed the long-term efficacy of imatinib exposure in patients with CML in chronic phase according to European recommendations which consists both early and late chronic phase patients. This is a retrospective study including 101 chronic phase CML patients from a single center. The patient outcomes were analyzed according to initial treatment with imatinib either as firstline or secondline option following prior interferon. Kaplan-Meier curves were constructed to estimate probability and differences between subgroups were analyzed by the log-rank test. Forty-three percent of the patients had a prior history of interferon therapy. Of the 101 patients included, complete cytogenetic responses were achieved in 43.6 % of patients; major cytogenetic response in 55.4%; major molecular response in 36.6%. Totally, 21.3% had cytogenetic failure and 5.3% without any hematological response. Response rates were lower in late chronic phase patients compared to early chronic phase patients. This study justified the significance of ELN criteria and once again approved the high efficacy of imatinib treatment in chronic phase CML patients.

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 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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
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 score0.178
Threshold uncertainty score0.602

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
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 head0.106
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations2
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hematological MalignanciesSame topicChronic Myeloid Leukemia TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207