Bibliographic record
Abstract
Presently Hodgkin's lymphoma can be cured in at least 80% of patients. The major challenge to the clinician in 2005 is how to cure the disease while inducing the least irreversible toxicity. This review focuses on clinical trials and institutional experiences to identify the best choice of treatment, individualized to the stage of the lymphoma permitting minimization of late toxicity such as infertility, premature menopause, cardiac disease, and most importantly, risk of second neoplasms. More than 90% of patients with limited Hodgkin's lymphoma can be cured with either short-course chemotherapy alone or even briefer chemotherapy followed by involved-field radiation. Accumulating evidence suggests that chemotherapy alone is suitable for the large majority of patients with limited disease. For the 80% of patients with advanced disease but without a large number of adverse prognostic factors, standard multi-agent chemotherapy with the well-established ABVD regimen (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vinblastine, and dacarbazine) provides the best balance of effectiveness and minimization of toxicity. More intensified regimens currently under investigation are appropriate for the 20% with numerous adverse prognostic factors. In 2005 it is insufficient to focus solely on cure of Hodgkin's lymphoma. The treatment program must maximize chance of cure and minimize late toxicity. Fortunately, brief chemotherapy alone or with radiation for patients with limited disease and standard ABVD chemotherapy for patients with advanced disease offer the appropriate balance of these two requirements. Patients with advanced disease plus multiple indicators of a poor prognosis and patients with disease that persists despite optimized primary treatment require specially intensified treatment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.004 |
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".