Analysis of predictors of response to ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis in the phase 3b expanded-access JUMP study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data from the large, prospective, multinational, phase 3b JUMP study were analyzed to identify factors predictive of spleen and symptom responses in myelofibrosis patients receiving ruxolitinib. Factors associated with higher spleen response rates included International Prognostic Scoring System (IPSS) low/intermediate-1 risk vs intermediate-2/high risk (43.1% vs 30.6%; adjusted OR [aOR] 0.65 [95% CI 0.44-0.95]), ruxolitinib as first- vs second- or later-line therapy (40.2% vs 31.5%; aOR 0.53 [95% CI 0.38-0.75]), and a ruxolitinib total daily dose at Week 12 of >20 mg/day vs ≤20 mg/day (41.3% vs 30.4%; aOR 0.47 [95% CI 0.33-0.68]). No association was seen between baseline characteristics or total daily dose at Week 12 and symptom response. Ruxolitinib led to higher spleen response rates in patients with lower IPSS risk, and when used earlier in treatment. Higher doses of ruxolitinib were associated with higher spleen response rates, but not with symptom improvement.Trial registrationINC424 for patients with primary myelofibrosis, post polycythemia myelofibrosis or post-essential thrombocythemia myelofibrosis (JUMP).2010-024473-39; NCT01493414Date of registration: 16 December 2011https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=2010-024473-39https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT01493414.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".