Gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP) is an effective and well-tolerated salvage therapy for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma and Hodgkin lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The optimal choice of salvage therapy for patients with relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma (DLBCL) or Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) remains unknown. Based on promising results of phase II trials, the preferred salvage regimen in British Columbia since 2002 has been the out-patient regimen, gemcitabine, dexamethasone, and cisplatin (GDP). We conducted a retrospective analysis including all patients with relapsed/refractory DLBCL or HL who received GDP as salvage therapy between September 2002 and June 2010. We identified 235 patients: 152 DLBCL, 83 HL. Overall response rates were 49% and 71% for patients with DLBCL and HL, respectively. Within the transplant-eligible population, 52% of patients with DLBCL and 96% of patients with HL proceeded to stem cell transplantation. The 2-year progression-free survival and overall survival were 21% and 28% in the DLBCL cohort, and 58% and 85% in the HL group. GDP is an effective and well-tolerated out-patient salvage regimen for relapsed/refractory DLBCL and HL.
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) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".