MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W2981261776 · doi:10.1182/blood.v106.11.18.18

Revised Response Criteria for Malignant Lymphomas From the Members of the International Harmonization Project (IHP) of the Competence Network Malignant Lymphoma, Represented by:.

2005· article· en· W2981261776 on OpenAlexaff
Bruce D. Cheson, Beate Pfistner, Malik E. Juweid, Lena Specht, Steven T. Rosen, Randy D. Gascoyne, Sigrid Stroobants, Volker Diehl

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsBC Cancer Agency
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineClinical trialContext (archaeology)LymphomaInternal medicineHodgkin lymphomaMedical physicsHematopathologyOncologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Standardized response criteria are essential for interpretation of clinical data, comparisons among clinical trials, development of new therapies, and approval of agents by regulatory agencies. In 1999, an International Working Group (IWG) developed recommendations for response assessment for non-Hodgkin’s lymphomas (NHL) that were adopted internationally by study groups and regulatory agencies and, subsequently, by clinical trials groups for Hodgkin lymphoma (HL) as well (Cheson et al, J Clin Oncol, 17:1244, 1999). Since their publication, several observations compelled a reassessment and, ultimately, revision of those guidelines, e.g., the availability of FDG-PET scans, new insights into lymphoma pathology and biology, the failure of the IWG guidelines to include HL and extranodal NHL, and features of the original guidelines that were found to be unclear as they were implemented into clinical trials. Most notable of these was the interpretation of the response category of Complete Remission unconfirmed (CRu). In the context of the IHP, a group of international lymphoma investigators with expertise in medical hematology/oncology, radiation oncology, nuclear medicine and imaging, pathology, biostatistics, and pediatrics were convened to revise the IWG guidelines. Committees focused on Response Criteria, Pathology/Biology, Endpoints, and Clinical Features, and discussions were initiated to undertake a major revision of the IWG guidelines. The important modifications that will be presented included, but were not limited to, integration of PET according to recent data (Juweid et al, J Clin Oncol, 23:4652, 2005), to facilitate the distinction between persistent tumor and scar/fibrosis, virtually eliminate the designation of CRu, and improve prediction of outcome. Guidelines were provided for the specific indications where this test can be currently recommended. Other proposals involved the role of flow cytometry and assessment of minimal residual disease. Response criteria for extranodal sites were also incorporated. Adoption of these revised guidelines by study groups will further improve the conduct and interpretation of clinical trials leading to more effective therapies for patients with lymphomas.

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)0.266
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.186
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.266
Threshold uncertainty score0.905

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.2660.186
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.008
Bibliometrics0.0070.006
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0060.003
Open science0.0090.006
Research integrity0.0050.013
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.003

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.256 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

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

Citations8
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→