MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2625414910 · doi:10.1182/blood-2017-03-737460

How I treat patients with aggressive lymphoma at high risk of CNS relapse

2017· review· en· W2625414910 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Collin K. Chin, Chan Y. Cheah

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersBC Cancer Agency
KeywordsMedicineInternal medicineLymphomaAggressive lymphomaOncologyRituximab

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Central nervous system (CNS) relapses are an uncommon yet devastating complication of non-Hodgkin lymphomas. The identification of patients at high risk of secondary CNS relapse is therefore paramount. Retrospective data indicate prophylactic CNS-directed therapies may reduce the risk of CNS involvement; however, no consensus exists about dose, timing, or route of therapy. In addition, prophylaxis is not without risk of treatment-related complications and morbidity. Here, we present a series of case vignettes highlighting our approach to common dilemmas encountered in routine clinical practice. We review the method of assessing CNS relapse risk, factors that increase the likelihood of relapse including histologic subtype, MYC rearrangement, protein expression, and extranodal involvement, and review our clinical practice based on available evidence in administering CNS-directed prophylaxis.

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 categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.945
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.026
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.251 · 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

Citations33
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207