Post hoc analysis of relationship between baseline white blood cell count and renal and hepatic function and response in a randomized phase III trial of decitabine in patients age 65 or older with acute myeloid leukemia.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
6632 Background: A phase III trial (NCT00260832) in patients (N=485) ≥65y with newly diagnosed acute myeloid leukemia (AML) was conducted (Kantarjian, JCO; in press). Every 4 wk, patients received decitabine (DAC) 20 mg/m2 (1-h intravenous infusion, 5 successive days) or treatment choice (TC) with either supportive care or cytarabine (20 mg/m2 subcutaneous injection daily, 10 successive days). This post hoc analysis examined whether baseline (BL) renal and hepatic function and white blood cell (WBC) counts were associated with response to DAC or TC. Methods: For patients with available data, BL WBC count and markers of renal function (blood urea nitrogen [BUN], creatinine) and liver function (ALT, AST, albumin) were tabulated for patients with/without a response to DAC or TC. Response was defined as morphologic complete remission (CR), CR with incomplete blood count recovery (CRi), or partial remission (PR). Results: Nonresponders had a higher mean BL creatinine vs responders (86.78 vs 80.23 mmol/L, respectively; P=.005); with no differences in BL BUN levels. There were no other between-group differences. Conclusions: This analysis suggests that there is no relationship between BL WBC or hepatic function and response to treatment with DAC or TC. Although there was no difference in BL BUN, higher mean creatinine levels in nonresponders may suggest a prognostic relationship but further studies are needed to clarify. [Table: see text]
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 | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".