Consensus expert recommendations for identification and management of asparaginase hypersensitivity and silent inactivation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
L-asparaginase is an integral component of therapy for acute lymphoblastic leukemia. However, asparaginase-related complications, including the development of hypersensitivity reactions, can limit its use in individual patients. Of considerable concern in the setting of clinical allergy is the development of neutralizing antibodies and associated asparaginase inactivity. Also problematic in the use of asparaginase is the potential for the development of silent inactivation, with the formation of neutralizing antibodies and reduced asparaginase activity in the absence of a clinically evident allergic reaction. Here we present guidelines for the identification and management of clinical hypersensitivity and silent inactivation with Escherichia coli- and Erwinia chrysanthemi- derived asparaginase preparations. These guidelines were developed by a consensus panel of experts following a review of the available published data. We provide a consensus of expert opinions on the role of serum asparaginase level assessment, indications for switching asparaginase preparation, and monitoring after change in asparaginase preparation.
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 | 0.042 | 0.069 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.009 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.007 |
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".