National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: III. The 2020 Treatment of Chronic GVHD Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Positive results from recent clinical trials have significantly expanded current therapeutic options for patients with chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). However, new insights into the associations between clinical characteristics of chronic GVHD, pathophysiologic mechanisms of disease, and the clinical and biological effects of novel therapeutic agents are required to allow for a more individualized approach to treatment. The current report is focused on setting research priorities and direction in the treatment of chronic GVHD. Detailed correlative scientific studies should be conducted in the context of clinical trials to evaluate associations between clinical outcomes and the biological effect of systemic therapeutics. For patients who require systemic therapy but not urgent initiation of glucocorticoids, clinical trials for initial systemic treatment of chronic GVHD should investigate novel agents as monotherapy without concurrently starting glucocorticoids, to avoid confounding biological, pathological, and clinical assessments. Clinical trials for treatment-refractory disease should specifically target patients with incomplete or suboptimal responses to most recent therapy who are early in their disease course. Close collaboration between academic medical centers, medical societies, and industry is needed to support an individualized, biology-based strategic approach to chronic GVHD therapy.
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 | 0.423 | 0.430 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.012 | 0.019 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.013 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.021 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.027 | 0.017 |
| Research integrity | 0.039 | 0.041 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.015 |
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".