Evaluation of an Outpatient Model for Treatment of Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: In January 2012, our center developed an ambulatory model for acute myeloid leukemia (AML) patients receiving post-induction chemotherapy. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the feasibility and safety of the outpatient leukemia program at our center. Methods: A retrospective review of all consecutive AML patients receiving a first cycle of consolidation chemotherapy in the outpatient program in 2012 was compared to similarly managed patients primarily in the inpatient setting in 2010. Results: The 2012 cohort spent more days as outpatients in comparison to the 2010 cohort (median (range): 15.5 (0 - 27) vs. 0 (0 - 10), days, P = 0.002). There was no difference between the two cohorts in terms of median overall observation time (time from start of chemotherapy until discharged to clinic), transfusion requirements, days spent neutropenic or days spent febrile. There were no documented episodes of Clostridium difficile , clinically significant bleeding, venous thromboembolism, or death in either cohort. Conclusions: Outpatient management of AML patients receiving post-induction chemotherapy was feasible in this group of carefully selected individuals, liberating limited and costly inpatient resources for more appropriate patients. J Hematol. 2016;5(1):1-7 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.14740/jh235w
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 | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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.
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".