Low <i>CREBBP</i> expression is associated with adverse long‐term outcomes in paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: CREBBP alterations are associated with many diseases including leukaemia. However, CREBBP expression and its clinical relevance in paediatric acute lymphoblastic leukaemia have not been elucidated. METHODS: We studied CREBBP mRNA expression in 349 patients treated with either the BCH-2003 or CCLG-2008 protocol. Using a receiver operating characteristic curve, patients were divided into low- or high-CREBBP. The association among clinicobiological characteristics, outcomes and CREBBP level was analysed. RESULTS: ) after induction. We found significantly poorer event-free survival (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in low-CREBBP group whether administered BCH-2003 or CCLG-2008. Low-CREBBP was an inferior independent prognostic factor in BCH-2003; patients with low-CREBBP had better outcomes on an intermediate-risk regimen than a standard-risk regimen involving the CCLG-2008 protocol. Patients stratified to high-risk with low-CREBBP had the worst EFS and OS. CONCLUSIONS: These findings indicate that low-CREBBP is predictive of unfavourable outcomes; thus, a more intensive treatment protocol is necessitated for standard-risk patients with insufficient CREBBP and that a specific target therapy is necessitated for high-risk patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".