Comparison of a pediatric-inspired treatment protocol versus standard-intensity chemotherapy for young adults with standard-risk BCR-ABL negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated the utility of a pediatric-inspired protocol in adults aged 18-40 years with standard-risk BCR-ABL negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL). Retrospective outcomes of 25 patients treated with a pediatric protocol between 2008 and 2014 were compared with 22 similarly aged patients treated with an adult protocol between 2003 and 2008. Twenty-five (100%) and 19 (86%) patients achieved complete remission, respectively. At median follow-up of 36.8 months, 3-year event-free survival was increased in patients on the pediatric protocol at 80% versus 45% (p = .019). There was a trend toward improved overall survival at 80% versus 59% (p = .12). Treatment-related toxicity was not increased despite the increased treatment intensity. Patients with BCR and/or ABL copy number variation demonstrated comparatively poorer outcomes in both cohorts. In our experience with this cohort of patients, pediatric-based protocols are safe and effective, justifying their use in younger adults with ALL.
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 | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".