MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2936758797 · doi:10.2147/ott.s191179

<p>Rituximab-based combination therapy in patients with Waldenström macroglobulinemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis</p>

2019· review· en· W2936758797 on OpenAlex
Yanhua Zheng, Li Xu, Chun Cao, Juan Feng, Hailong Tang, Mi-Mi Shu, Guangxun Gao, Xiequn Chen

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueOncoTargets and Therapy · 2019
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersFourth Military Medical University
KeywordsMedicineRituximabWaldenstrom macroglobulinemiaMacroglobulinemiaMeta-analysisInternal medicineOncologyLymphomaMultiple myeloma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of rituximab-based combination therapy for Waldenström macroglobulinemia (WM), we conducted this meta-analysis by pooling the rates of overall response, major response, complete response, and grade ≥3 hematological adverse events. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We searched for relevant studies in the databases of PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and the Cochrane Library. The qualitative assessment of all the included articles was conducted with reference to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. A random-effects model was selected to perform all pooled analyses. RESULTS: We identified altogether 22 studies with a total of 806 symptomatic WM patients enrolled. The pooled analysis indicated that the rituximab-based combination therapy achieved an overall response rate (ORR) of 84% (95% CI: 81%-87%), a major response rate (MRR) of 71% (95% CI: 66%-75%), and a complete response rate (CRR) of 7% (95% CI: 5%-10%). Rituximab plus conventional alkylating agents-containing chemotherapy (subgroup A) yielded an ORR of 86% (95% CI: 81%-89%), an MRR of 74% (95% CI: 69%-79%), and a CRR of 8% (95% CI: 4%-14%). Rituximab plus purine analog (subgroup B) resulted in an ORR of 85% (95% CI: 79%-89%), an MRR of 74% (95% CI: 66%-81%), and a CRR of 9% (95% CI: 4%-15%). Rituximab plus proteasome inhibitor (subgroup C) resulted in an ORR of 86% (95% CI: 81%-90%), an MRR of 68% (95% CI: 58%-77%), and a CRR of 7% (95% CI: 3%-11%). Rituximab plus immunomodulatory drug (subgroup D) attained relatively lower response rates, with an ORR of 67% (95% CI: 51%-81%), an MRR of 56% (95% CI: 27%-83%), and a CRR of 5% (95% CI: 1%-12%). Common grade ≥3 hematological adverse events consisted of neutropenia (33%, 95% CI: 17%-52%), thrombocytopenia (7%, 95% CI: 3%-11%), and anemia (5%, 95% CI: 3%-9%). CONCLUSION: Rituximab in combination with an alkylating agent, purine analog, or proteasome inhibitor is highly effective with tolerable hematological toxicities for WM.

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.

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)0.002
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: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.785
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0120.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.063
GPT teacher head0.345
Teacher spread0.282 · 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