Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To compare the clinical presentation, response to treatment, and long-term outcome of Hodgkin's lymphoma (HL) presenting in adolescents and young adults. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The British Columbia Cancer Agency Lymphoid Cancer database was used to identify adolescents (16 years to 21 years) and young adults (22 years to 45 years) receiving primary treatment for HL between 1981 and 2004. All patients were treated using adult protocols. RESULTS: The study population included 259 adolescents and 890 young adults. There were no significant differences in histologic subtypes, sex, stages, or presence of B symptoms or bulky disease between adolescents and adults. Equal proportions of adolescents and adults were treated with radiation alone (38% v 35%), chemotherapy alone (13% v 15%), or combined-modality programs (49% v 50%). There was no difference in progression-free survival (PFS) or overall survival (OS) between adolescents and adults, with 10-year PFS rates of 77% versus 80% (P = .67) and 10-year OS rates of 91% versus 89% (P = .42). In limited stage disease, 10-year PFS was 89% for adolescents and 89% for adults and OS 96% and 96%, respectively. In advanced stage disease, 10-year PFS was 71% for adolescents and 75% for adults and OS 88% and 86%, respectively. Actuarial risk of second malignancy for adolescents and adults was not different (P = .68). CONCLUSION: Adolescents and young adults with HL have similar baseline characteristics and achieve similar outcomes when treated with the same protocols. The use of adult treatment protocols is a safe and effective strategy for treating adolescents with HL.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".