MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2131389179 · doi:10.5430/jhm.v3n2p8

Retrospective study of quantitative free light chain levels in random urine of patients with multiple myeloma

2013· article· en· W2131389179 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Jozef Malysz, Junjia Zhu, Michael H. Creer, Nathan G. Dolloff, Michael G. Bayerl, Giampaolo Talamo

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Hematological Malignancies · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsUrineMultiple myelomaImmunofixationMedicineImmunoglobulin light chainKappaInternal medicineUrologyGastroenterologyAntibodyImmunologyMonoclonalMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The traditional method to quantify the immunoglobulin free light chains (FLCs) in patients with multiple myeloma (MM)is based on either their serum levels or on 24-hour urine collections. The latter method is cumbersome and ofteninaccurate, and serum levels are currently the preferred method for quantifying FLCs in MM. Scarce data exist on the FLCquantification in random urine samples. In this study, we first compared serum and urine levels of FLCs measured in24-hour specimens obtained from 56 consecutive MM patients. We subsequently examined the same correlation in 209random urine specimens obtained from a second cohort of 117 consecutive MM patients. Serum FLCs were highlycorrelated, both with the 24-hour and the random urine specimens. With the latter, the Pearson coefficient r was 0.805 and0.748 for kappa and lambda light chains, respectively (p<0.001), even in the presence of renal insufficiency. Random urineFLCs levels >1.2 mg/dL predicted a positive urine immunofixation with a specificity and sensitivity of 52.7% and 95.8%,respectively. Since random urine quantification of kappa and lambda FLCs paralleled their serum counterparts over time,this method could represent an additional non-invasive test for assessing disease activity in MM 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)0.002
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 score0.038
Threshold uncertainty score0.431

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.258 · 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

Citations0
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Hematological MalignanciesSame topicMultiple Myeloma Research and TreatmentsFrench-language works237,207