The full blood count as a biomarker of outcome and toxicity in ipilimumab‐treated cutaneous metastatic melanoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ipilimumab produces durable responses in some metastatic melanoma patients. Neutrophil, platelet, and eosinophil to lymphocyte ratios (NLR, PLR, and ELR) may be associated with the immune response in cancer thereby acting as biomarkers of toxicity and efficacy in ipilimumab-treated patients. Data were collected on clinical characteristics and lactate dehydrogenase (LDH), NLR, PLR, and ELR at baseline, post cycle 2 and at the end of treatment for 183 patients treated with ipilimumab between 2008 and 2015 at the Princess Margaret Cancer Centre. Associations between clinical characteristics, LDH, NLR, PLR, and ELR with toxicity or survival outcomes of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were assessed using univariable and multivariable analysis. Prognostic models of outcome at each time point were determined. Of the 183 patients included, the median age was 58, 85% had M1c disease, 58% were performance status 1, and 64% received ipilimumab as second line therapy. Median follow up was 7.5 months (range: 0.3-49.5), median PFS was 2.8 months (95% confidence intervals (CI): 2.8-3.2), and median OS was 9.6 months (95% CI: 7.9-13.2). Prognostic factors for OS by multivariable analysis were LDH and NLR at all-time points. Prognostic models using LDH (× 2 upper limit of normal) and NLR 4) differentiated patients into high, moderate, and low risk of death prior to or on ipilimumab treatment (P < 0.0001 for each model). No factors were associated with toxicity. Prognostic models based on NLR and LDH values at baseline and on treatment differentiate patients into good, intermediate, and poor prognostic groups and may be relevant in patient management.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".