OUTCOME AND TOXICITY PATTERNS IN CHILDREN AND ADOLESCENTS WITH NON-HODGKIN LYMPHOMA: A SINGLE INSTITUTION EXPERIENCE
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: The incidence and biology of non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL) vary according to age. Some data suggest that the impact of age in pediatric and adolescent NHL patients depends on the histological subtype. Objectives: We aimed to analyze the impact of age at diagnosis on clinical characteristics and treatment-related toxicity in children and adolescents with NHL.Methods: Retrospective review of medical records of children and adolescents diagnosed with NHL at the Hospital for Sick children, Toronto, between January 1995 and December 2008.Results: 164 children were diagnosed with NHL during the study period, with a median age at diagnosis of 10 years. With a median follow-up of 6.2 years, 5-year OS in patients aged <15 and 15-18 years was 89± 2% vs 82% ± 6%, respectively (P = 0.30), and 5-year EFS was 84% ± 3% vs. 77% ± 7% (P= 0.37). In Burkitts lymphoma (BL) and lymphoblastic lymphoma (LL) there was a trend towards better outcomes in children compared to adolescents, with EFS of 91% ± 4% vs. 75% ± 15%, respectively in BL (P= 0.17), and 82% ± 7% vs. 51.4% ± 2% respectively in LL (P= 0.16). Late effects occurred in 21 patients (12.8%).Conclusions: Children with NHL aged < 15 years tend to have better survival rates and less long-term toxicity than adolescents aged 15-18 years.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".