Amplification of Chromosome 1q Predicts Poor Overall Survival in Newly Diagnosed Multiple Myeloma Patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Chromosome 1q copy number alterations are common in newly diagnosed patients with multiple myeloma, and in most published studies, there is no distinction made between three copies or the addition of at least four copies. The impact of these copy number alterations on patient outcome and optimal treatment is not fully understood. Methods: We retrospectively analyzed 136 transplant eligible patients with newly diagnosed multiple myeloma from our national registry, who were treated with first autologous stem cell transplantation (aHSCT) between January 1, 2018, and December 31, 2021. The primary endpoint was overall survival. Results: Patients with at least four copies of chromosome 1q had the poorest prognosis, with an overall survival of only 28.3 months. In multivariate analysis, four copies of chromosome 1q were the only statistically significant factor for overall survival. Conclusions: Despite the use of novel agents, transplantation, and maintenance therapy, patients with a gain of four copies of chromosome 1q have a very poor survival rate. Therefore, prospective studies using immunotherapy in this patient population are necessary.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".