Tumor lysis syndrome in chronic lymphocytic leukemia: conventional treatment versus novel agents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Introduction: Existing evidence on the difference in the incidence of tumor lysis syndrome (TLS) in Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL) patients receiving novel therapies versus patients receiving conventional therapies is limited and inconclusive. The aims of this planned systematic review and meta-analysis are therefore Methods: We will conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis. Several electronic databases will be searched using predefined search terms to identify relevant studies. Eligible studies should report findings on the incidence of TLS in CLL patients. Primary observational studies with cross-sectional or prospective research design, case-control studies, and studies with experimental designs will be included. Study quality will be evaluated by 2 reviewers using the statistical methodology and categories described in the Cochrane Collaboration Handbook and preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses and other applicable guidelines. The meta-analysis will be performed and conducted using applicable standard statistical software like comprehensive meta-analysis and STATA. Discussion: This review and meta-analysis will be among the first to systematically explore and integrate the evidence available on the comparison between the incidences of TLS in CLL patients treated with novel agents versus conventional agents. By gathering and summarizing information about the risk of TLS in this patient population, the findings from this review will provide insights for future research directions and more understanding of the difference of TLS incidence between novel treatments and conventional treatment and suggest prophylactic measures for such cases. Systematic review registration: The protocol has been registered at the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO; registration number: CRD42020166770). The protocol was registered with the Hamad medical corporation, Medical research Center registry under a unique reference number (MRC-01-20-709).
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 | 0.013 | 0.042 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.011 | 0.014 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".