MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385144282 · doi:10.1002/hon.3205

Personalised therapy in follicular lymphoma – is the dial turning?

2023· review· en· W4385144282 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Kim Linton, Lena Specht, Astrid Pavlovsky, Carrie A. Thompson, Eva Kimby, Daphne de Jong, Loretta J. Nastoupil, Anne‐Ségolène Cottereau, Carla Casulo, Clémentine Sarkozy, Jessica Okosun

Bibliographic record

VenueHematological Oncology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNational Cancer InstituteGenentechTerry Fox FoundationViewRayCancer Research UKIncyteEisaiBeiGeneNational Cancer Research InstituteAstraZenecaCelgeneBlood Cancer UKGilead Sciences
KeywordsFollicular lymphomaMedicineDialOncologyLymphomaInternal medicineEngineering

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Follicular lymphoma is the most common indolent lymphoma accounting for approximately 20%-25% of all new non-Hodgkin lymphoma diagnoses in western countries. Whilst outcomes are mostly favorable, the spectrum of clinical phenotypes includes high-risk groups with significantly inferior outcomes. This review discusses recent updates in risk stratification and treatment approaches from upfront treatment for limited and advanced stage follicular lymphoma to the growing options for relapsed, refractory disease with perspectives on how to approach this from a personalized lens. Notable gaps remain on how one can precisely and prospectively select optimal treatment for patients based on varying risks, with an anticipation that an increased understanding of the biology of these different phenotypes and increasing refinement of imaging- and biomarker-based tools will, in time, allow these gaps to be closed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.012

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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 head0.136
GPT teacher head0.410
Teacher spread0.273 · 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

Citations6
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHematological OncologySame topicLymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207