MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2136385642 · doi:10.1517/14712598.2012.657622

Obinutuzumab for the treatment of lymphoproliferative disorders

2012· review· en· W2136385642 on OpenAlexaff
Carolyn Owen, Douglas A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Opinion on Biological Therapy · 2012
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsAlberta Cancer FoundationUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsObinutuzumabRituximabMedicineAntibody-dependent cell-mediated cytotoxicityCD20Clinical trialLymphomaOncologyMonoclonal antibodyImmunologyMonoclonal antibody therapyInternal medicineAntibody

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Targeted therapy against CD20 with the mAb rituximab has led to significant improvements in survival for patients with B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma (NHL). Despite these improvements, many patients relapse and/or become refractory after rituximab-containing therapies and thus better therapies are required for NHL. AREAS COVERED: Obinutuzumab is a novel, humanized, anti-CD20 mAb currently being investigated in Phase III studies in comparison to rituximab. An overview of obinutuzumab, its mechanisms of action and the results of pre-clinical and Phase I/II studies are presented. EXPERT OPINION: Pre-clinical studies suggest that obinutuzumab is a more potent anti-CD20 mAb than Rituximab at inducing antibody-dependent cellular cytotoxicity (ADCC) and direct cell death (DCD). Obinutuzumab is safe and effective in CD20 + NHL and further study is warranted. Results of ongoing Phase III clinical trials comparing Obinutuzumab to Rituximab in different disease settings and with different chemotherapy regimens are eagerly awaited.

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: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.994
Threshold uncertainty score0.793

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
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 head0.281
GPT teacher head0.442
Teacher spread0.161 · 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 designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Opinion on Biological TherapySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207