MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4213090277 · doi:10.17925/ohr.2021.17.2.73

Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitors for the Treatment of Waldenström's Macroglobulinaemia: A Canadian Perspective

2021· article· en· W4213090277 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Frederic Larose, Christine I. Chen

Bibliographic record

VenuetouchREVIEWS in Oncology & Haematology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia Research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersJanssen CanadaBeiGene
KeywordsBruton's tyrosine kinasePerspective (graphical)Waldenstrom macroglobulinemiaMedicineTyrosine kinaseIbrutinibInternal medicineComputer scienceLeukemiaReceptorLymphoma

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

C onventional chemoimmunotherapy using bendamustine and rituximab is considered the frontline treatment of choice for Waldenström's macroglobulinaemia (WM) in many countries, including Canada.Despite its efficacy, this regimen can be challenging for many patients, and the oral Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitors have emerged as alternative standard-of-care options.Ibrutinib, the first BTK inhibitor approved for WM, is highly active and is able to maintain years of disease control with continuous therapy.Though generally well tolerated, discontinuations due to adverse events and treatment fatigue with long-term use can occur.Newer selective BTK inhibitors such as zanubrutinib and acalabrutinib are promising in WM, demonstrating both efficacy even in challenging populations and the potential for improved toxicity over ibrutinib.As we enter an era of genomic-based treatment stratification within a publicly funded healthcare system in Canada, we review how the different BTK inhibitors and chemoimmunotherapy fit into the current Canadian treatment landscape for WM.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.619
Threshold uncertainty score0.757

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.003
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0040.007
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0110.002

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.390
Teacher spread0.345 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuetouchREVIEWS in Oncology & HaematologySame topicChronic Lymphocytic Leukemia ResearchFrench-language works237,207