A phase I study of romidepsin, gemcitabine, dexamethasone and cisplatin combination therapy in the treatment of peripheral T-cell and diffuse large B-cell lymphoma; the Canadian cancer trials group LY.15 study†
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We investigated GDP (gemcitabine, 1000 mg/m2 IV d1, d8; dexamethasone, 40 mg po d1-4; cisplatin, 75 mg/m2 IV d1) combined with romidepsin on days 1 and 8 every 21 days to a maximum of six cycles in a standard 3 + 3, phase I dose escalation trial for patients with relapsed/refractory peripheral T-cell (PTCL) or diffuse large B-cell (DLBCL) lymphoma (NCT01846390). After treating four patients, gemcitabine and romidepsin were given on days 1 and 15 every 28 days. On the 21-day schedule at 6 mg/m2 romidepsin, there were three dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) among four patients. On the 28-day schedule, there were no DLTs at the 6, 8, or 10 mg/m2 dose. At 12 mg/m2, there were four observed grade 3 DLTs among six evaluable patients. Full doses of GDP can be combined with a recommended phase II romidepsin dose of 10 mg/m2 if given on a day 1, 15 every 28 days schedule.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".