MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Novel agents in follicular lymphoma: choosing the best target

2016· review· en· W2557490043 on OpenAlexaff
Laurie H. Sehn

Bibliographic record

VenueHematology · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsFollicular lymphomaDrug developmentComputational biologyClinical trialMedicineBioinformaticsRisk analysis (engineering)Computer scienceDrugBiologyLymphomaPharmacologyImmunology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Outcomes in patients with follicular lymphoma (FL) have improved dramatically over the last decade. However, novel agents are greatly needed for those who exhibit treatment resistance, in order to minimize lifelong toxicity and to enable combinations that may allow us to achieve the elusive goal of cure. Biological advances have led to the discovery of a large number of potential therapeutic targets and the development of a plethora of novel agents designed to exploit these processes. Possible targets include tumor cell surface markers, key components of intracellular pathways and epigenetic mechanisms, and reactive cells of the microenvironment. Given the large number of candidate drugs and potential combinations, it will be crucial to prioritize evaluation based on sound preclinical and early clinical studies. Combinations that exploit driver mechanisms within tumor cells and target parallel pathways to minimize the development of drug resistance, as well as harness the potential of the immune system would seem most logical. In order to expedite progress, future studies will need to use innovative trial designs and employ surrogate end points. The development of validated prognostic tools to identify higher risk patients and reliable predictive markers to select subgroups most likely to benefit from targeted agents will be paramount. The potential for unexpected toxicity with novel combinations must be recognized, necessitating both short- and long-term vigilance. Finally, as a greater number of treatment options become available, optimal sequencing must be determined in order to both prolong life and maintain its quality.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.977
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.072
GPT teacher head0.360
Teacher spread0.287 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designOther design
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207