MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2149242646 · doi:10.1007/s00277-008-0449-0

Practical recommendations on the use of lenalidomide in the management of myelodysplastic syndromes

2008· review· en· W2149242646 on OpenAlexaff
Aristoteles Giagounidis, Pierre Fenaux, Ghulam J. Mufti, Petra Muus, Uwe Platzbecker, Guillermo Sanz, Larry D. Cripe, Marie von Lilienfeld‐Toal, Richard A. Wells

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Hematology · 2008
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Myeloid Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science Centre
FundersCelgene
KeywordsLenalidomideMyelodysplastic syndromesMedicineDiseaseInternal medicineIntensive care medicineHematologyInternational Prognostic Scoring SystemOncologyFood and drug administrationMultiple myelomaBone marrowPharmacology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lenalidomide, an oral immunomodulatory agent, has received approval in the USA from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the management of myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS) classified by the International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) as low risk or intermediate-1 risk and with a deletion 5q (del(5q)) cytogenetic abnormality. Although some patients with del(5q) have a relatively good prognosis, all del(5q) patients will become transfusion-dependent at some point during the course of their disease. The results of two clinical trials in more than 160 patients with MDS have demonstrated clear therapeutic benefits of lenalidomide, with >60% of patients achieving independence from transfusion during therapy, irrespective of age, prior therapy, sex, or disease-risk assessment. The recommendations presented in this review will aid the safe administration of lenalidomide for the treatment of patients with low-risk or intermediate-1-risk MDS and a del(5q) cytogenetic abnormality, and they will help physicians avoid unnecessary dose reduction or interruption, thus assuring the best efficacy for 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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.519
Threshold uncertainty score0.494

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.459
GPT teacher head0.489
Teacher spread0.030 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations81
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of HematologySame topicAcute Myeloid Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207