A bioclinical prognostic model using MYC and BCL2 predicts outcome in relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The objective of this study was to create a bioclinical model, based on clinical and molecular predictors of event-free and overall survival for relapsed/refractory diffuse large B-cell lymphoma patients treated on the Canadian Cancer Trials Group (CCTG) LY12 prospective study. In 91 cases, sufficient histologic material was available to create tissue microarrays and perform immunohistochemistry staining for CD10, BCL6, MUM1/IRF4, FOXP1, LMO2, BCL2, MYC, P53 and phosphoSTAT3 (pySTAT3) expression. Sixty-seven cases had material sufficient for fluorescent in situ hybridization (FISH) for MYC and BCL2. In addition, 97 formalin-fixed, paraffin-embedded tissue samples underwent digital gene expression profiling (GEP) to evaluate BCL2, MYC, P53, and STAT3 expression, and to determine cell-of-origin (COO) using the Lymph2Cx assay. No method of determining COO predicted event-free survival (EFS) or overall survival (OS). Factors independently associated with survival outcomes in multivariate analysis included primary refractory disease, elevated serum lactate dehydrogenase (LDH) at relapse, and MYC or BCL2 protein or gene expression. A bioclinical score using these four factors predicted outcome with 3-year EFS for cases with 0–1 vs. 2–4 factors of 55% vs. 16% (P
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".