Measuring Therapeutic Response in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease. National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Project on Criteria for Clinical Trials in Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease: IV. The 2014 Response Criteria Working Group Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2005, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease (GVHD) Consensus Response Criteria Working Group recommended several measures to document serial evaluations of chronic GVHD organ involvement. Provisional definitions of complete response, partial response, and progression were proposed for each organ and for overall outcome. Based on publications over the last 9 years, the 2014 Working Group has updated its recommendations for measures and interpretation of organ and overall responses. Major changes include elimination of several clinical parameters from the determination of response, updates to or addition of new organ scales to assess response, and the recognition that progression excludes minimal, clinically insignificant worsening that does not usually warrant a change in therapy. The response definitions have been revised to reflect these changes and are expected to enhance reliability and practical utility of these measures in clinical trials. Clarification is provided about response assessment after the addition of topical or organ-targeted treatment. Ancillary measures are strongly encouraged in clinical trials. Areas suggested for additional research include criteria to identify irreversible organ damage and validation of the modified response criteria, including in the pediatric population.
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 | 0.241 | 0.245 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.008 | 0.008 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
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.
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; the direct Gemma label and the distilled Codex classifier agree on what is shown here.
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".