MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2978692898 · doi:10.1097/op9.0000000000000006

Treatment options for patients with mantle cell lymphoma post-transplantation

2018· article· en· W2978692898 on OpenAlexaff
Emily Cowley, Thomas McFarlane

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Oncology Pharmacy · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMantle cell lymphomaIbrutinibMedicineAutologous stem-cell transplantationOncologyRegimenInternal medicineLymphomaRandomized controlled trialRefractory (planetary science)LeukemiaBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Mantle cell lymphoma is a rare subtype of B-cell lymphoma which carries with it a poor prognosis and is typically refractory to treatment. Autologous stem cell transplant (ASCT) has been shown to improve survival, but is not considered curative. There is currently no specific preferred regimen of treatment according to current guidelines for patients who fail ASCT. We undertook a systematic scoping review to examine the existing literature in this setting. A total of 3045 records were screened, yielding 40 full-text articles, 12 of which were included in the results. Ibrutinib and venetoclax appeared to produce the highest response rates and length of progression-free survival post-ASCT, however, there are serious gaps in the literature regarding what is actually known about the efficacy of treatment regiments for relapsed/refractory mantle cell lymphoma in post-ASCT patients and more randomized, controlled clinical trials are needed in this area.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.007
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0020.002
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0070.000

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 head0.023
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.293 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Oncology Pharmacy→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→