Response‐adapted therapy for the treatment of children with newly diagnosed high risk Hodgkin lymphoma (AHOD0831): a report from the Children’s Oncology Group
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The AHOD0831 study for paediatric patients with high risk Hodgkin lymphoma tested a response-based approach designed to limit cumulative alkylator exposure and reduce radiation volumes. Patients (Stage IIIB/IVB) received two cycles of ABVE-PC (doxorubicin, bleomycin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, cyclophosphamide). Rapid early responders [RER, no positron emission tomography (PET) activity above mediastinal blood pool] were consolidated with 2 cycles of ABVE-PC. Slow early responders (SER) received 2 cycles of ifosfamide/vinorelbine and 2 cycles of ABVE-PC. Radiotherapy was administered to sites of initial bulk and/or SER. By intent-to-treat analysis, 4-year second event-free survival (EFS; freedom from second relapse or malignancy) was 91·9% [95% confidence interval (CI): 86·1-95·3%], below the projected baseline of 95% (P = 0·038). Five-year first EFS and overall survival (OS) rates are 79·1% (95% CI: 71·5-84·8%) and 95% (95% CI: 88·8-97·8%). Eight of 11 SER patients with persistent PET positive lesions at the end of chemotherapy had clinical evidence of active disease (3 biopsy-proven, 5 with progressive disease or later relapses). Although this response-directed approach did not reach the ambitiously high pre-specified target for second EFS, EFS and OS rates are comparable with results of recent trials despite the reduction in radiotherapy volumes from historical involved fields. Persistent PET at end of chemotherapy identifies a cohort at an especially high risk for relapse/early progression.
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 | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".