Azacitidine in the ‘real‐world’: an evaluation of 1101 higher‐risk myelodysplastic syndrome/low blast count acute myeloid leukaemia patients in Ontario, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The outcome of myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) patients with uniformly higher-risk disease treated with azacitidine (AZA) in the 'real-world' remains largely unknown. We evaluated 1101 consecutive higher-risk MDS patients (International Prognostic Scoring System intermediate-2/high) and low-blast count acute myeloid leukaemia (AML; 21-30% blasts) patients treated in Ontario, Canada. By dosing schedule, 24·7% received AZA for seven consecutive days, 12·4% for six consecutive days and 62·9% by 5-2-2. Overall, median number of cycles was 6 (range 1-67) and 8 (range 6-14) when restricted to the 692 (63%) patients who received at least 4 cycles. The actuarial median survival was 11·6 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 10·7-12·4) for the entire cohort and 18·0 months (landmark analysis; 95% CI 16·6-19·1 months) for those receiving at least 4 cycles. There was no difference in overall survival (OS) between the 3 dosing schedules (P = 0·87). In our large 'real-world' evaluation of AZA in higher-risk MDS/low-blast count AML, we demonstrated a lower than expected OS. Reassuringly, survival did not differ by dosing schedules. The OS was higher in the 2/3 of patients who received at least 4 cycles of treatment, reinforcing the necessity of sustained administration until therapeutic benefits are realised. This represents the largest 'real-world' evaluation of AZA in higher-risk MDS/low-blast count AML.
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 | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".