MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Who Actually Detects Relapse in Hodgkin Lymphoma: Patient or Physician?.

2004· article· en· W2563214243 on OpenAlexaff
Lynda Foltz, Kevin Song, Joseph M. Connors

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer AgencyVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAsymptomaticInternal medicineChemotherapy regimenSurgeryChest radiographB symptomsRadiological weaponLymphomaCancerLung

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background: Few studies have objectively assessed the value of routine clinical, laboratory and radiological evaluation to detect recurrence of Hodgkin lymphoma. The optimal follow up of patients (pts) in complete remission following initial therapy has not been defined. Methods: We identified 99 adult pts with Hodgkin lymphoma, who received treatment and follow up supervised by the British Columbia Cancer Agency and relapsed between Jan 1990 and April 2004. Pts who did not achieve complete remission or had a second hematological malignancy were excluded. Pts were followed with clinical assessment, chest radiograph, CBC and alk phos every 3 m for 2 y, then every 6 m for 3 y, then annually. Routine CT scans were recommended every 6 m for 3 y then annually for 2 y. Relapses were categorized as identified by pt (symptoms, new palpable disease) or by physician (routine physical examination or radiological or laboratory studies in asymptomatic pts). Results: Median age at original diagnosis was 28 y (range 14–73). 86 pts initally had advanced and 13 limited stage disease. Primary treatment was chemotherapy +/− radiation in 93 pts and radiation alone in 6 pts. 10 pts had autologous SCT for primary refractory disease. Median follow up from diagnosis was 82 months (range 12–241). Median time to first relapse from completion of treatment was 14 months (range 2–142). Of the 99 relapses, 75 (76%) were identified by the pt and 24 (24%) by the physician. Pt systemic symptoms of relapse were: fatigue 13 pts; alcohol induced pain 3; weight loss 11; pruritis 9; night sweats 19; fever 6. Local symptoms were shortness of breath 8; chest pain 8; back pain 9; abd pain 3. 29 pts had more than 1 symptom. 44 pts noted a new lymph node or mass and 1 pt had leg swelling. 24 relapses were detected by physician: 14 on CXR, 7 on CT scan, 1 on lymphangiogram and 2 on physical exam. No asymptomatic relapses were identified by laboratory abnormalities alone. 2 of the 13 relapses in pts with initially limited stage disease (18%) were detected by physician (1 CXR and 1 CT chest), vs 22 of 86 (26%) in advanced disease. 78% of relapses occurred within 36 months of completing initial treatment. Patient vs Physician Detected Relapses by Follow up Period Time from therapy completion Patient Detected Relapse Physician Detected Relapse Total # Relapses < 12 months 37 (80%) 9 (20%) 46 12–35 months 19 (61%) 12 (39%) 31 ≥ 36 months 19 (86%) 3 (14%) 22 All Relapses 75 (76%) 24 (24%) 99 80% of relapses within 12 months of therapy completion were detected by pts despite more intensive physician surveillance in this period. The proportion of physician detected relapses was greatest 12–36 months after completion of treatment, possibly due to relapse with more slowly progressive disease amenable to detection on periodic routine testing while it is still being carried on relatively frequently. The 22% of relapses occurring in the period of less frequent surveillance, greater than 3 years after treatment, were primarily detected by pts. Conclusions: 76% of Hodgkin lymphoma relapses were detected by the pt and 78% of relapses occurred within 3 years of therapy completion. Asymptomatic relapse was detected on physical exam and radiological studies but not laboratory testing. The highest proportion of physician detected relapses occurred 12–35 months after treatment. Annual routine follow up beyond 36 months contributed minimally to relapse detection, identifying only 3% of total relapses.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.018
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.018
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.011
GPT teacher head0.237
Teacher spread0.226 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations12
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→