MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2145186497 · doi:10.3109/10428194.2015.1026901

Treatment of patients with secondary central nervous system lymphoma with high-dose busulfan/thiotepa-based conditioning and autologous stem cell transplant

2015· article· en· W2145186497 on OpenAlexaffabout
Danielle H. Oh, Neil Chua, Lesley Street, Douglas A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueLeukemia & lymphoma/Leukemia and lymphoma · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThioTEPABusulfanMedicineRegimenCyclophosphamideSurgeryMelphalanRituximabAutologous stem-cell transplantationChemotherapyLymphomaInternal medicineOncology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although the survival rates are extremely low for patients with secondary central nervous system lymphoma (SCNSL) treated with conventional chemotherapy and radiotherapy, more encouraging outcomes have recently been reported in small series with high-dose (HD) therapy and autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT). The optimal HD regimen for SCNSL is unknown. Despite reports of thiotepa/busulfan-based conditioning for primary CNS lymphoma, very little data exist regarding the use of this regimen for SCNSL. We analyzed 23 patients with SCNSL (median age 62 years) who underwent ASCT at two Alberta centers using thiotepa, busulfan, cyclophosphamide (TBC) in six patients prior to 2011 and rituximab-busulfan, melphalan, thiotepa (R-BuMelTt) in 17 patients after 2011. At a median follow-up of 27.8 months (4.2-113.6), the 2-year actuarial rate of progression-free survival was 76.1%. In conclusion, our results demonstrate encouraging survival outcomes for patients with SCNSL treated with R-BuMelTt and ASCT.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.624
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.007
GPT teacher head0.194
Teacher spread0.186 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLeukemia & lymphoma/Leukemia and lymphomaSame topicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207