Consensus opinion from an international group of experts on measurable residual disease in hairy cell leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant body of literature has been generated related to the detection of measurable residual disease (MRD) at the time of achieving complete remission (CR) in patients with hairy cell leukemia (HCL). However, due to the indolent nature of the disease as well as reports suggesting long-term survival in patients treated with a single course of a nucleoside analog albeit without evidence of cure, the merits of detection of MRD and attempts to eradicate it have been debated. Studies utilizing novel strategies in the relapse setting have demonstrated the utility of achieving CR with undetectable MRD (uMRD) in prolonging the duration of remission. Several assays including immunohistochemical analysis of bone marrow specimens, multi-parameter flow cytometry and molecular assays to detect the mutant BRAF V600E gene or the consensus primer for the immunoglobulin heavy chain gene (IGH) rearrangement have been utilized with few comparative studies. Here we provide a consensus report on the available data, the potential merits of MRD assessment in the front-line and relapse settings and recommendations on future role of MRD assessment in HCL.
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 | 0.007 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.006 |
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".