Outcomes in patients treated with gemtuzumab ozogamicin for relapsed acute myelogenous leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcomes of treatment with gemtuzumab ozogamicin compared with those of conventional chemotherapy for relapse of acute myelogenous leukemia (AML) were studied. The gemtuzumab ozogamicin group consisted of 104 patients treated in 15 U.S. and 25 European centers for first relapse of AML between May 1997 and December 1998. Conventional chemotherapy recipients consisted of 22 historical control patients who received treatment for their first occurrence of AML at a Boston teaching hospital between January 1991 and December 1994 and who subsequently underwent conventional inpatient reinduction chemotherapy for relapse. Patients in the gemtuzumab ozogamicin group received a two-hour i.v. infusion of 9 mg/m2 for up to three doses with at least two weeks between doses, while the historical controls received conventional chemotherapy, usually consisting of continuous-infusion cytarabine (days 1-7) plus mitoxantrone. Outcomes evaluated included differences in survival and hospitalization (occurrence and duration) for up to six weeks. Both stratified and multivariate regression methods were used in making comparisons. Adjusting for baseline differences, six-week survival rates were similar in the two groups (95% for the historical control group versus 89% for the gemtuzumab ozogamicin group). However, gemtuzumab ozogamicin recipients had significantly fewer total hospital days (adjusted mean, 19 days, versus 35 days), which was consistent with the higher prevalence of outpatient chemotherapy in this group (43% versus 0% among the historical controls). The difference in the number of hospital days was consistent across various baseline and demographic factors. Gemtuzumab ozogamicin appeared to be associated with equivalent survival and fewer total days of hospitalization than conventional chemotherapy in adults with relapsed AML.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".