MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387540453 · doi:10.1080/17474086.2023.2268273

Immunotherapy for myelodysplastic syndrome and acute myeloid leukemia: where do we stand?

2023· review· en· W4387540453 on OpenAlexaff
David Spillane, Sarit Assouline

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Hematology · 2023
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineChimeric antigen receptorImmunotherapyMyeloid leukemiaClinical trialImmunologyMyelodysplastic syndromesMyeloidTolerabilityT cellImmune systemOncologyCancer researchInternal medicineBone marrowAdverse effect

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Myelodysplastic syndrome (MDS) and acute myeloid leukemia (AML) are generally characterized by a poor prognosis with currently available therapies. Immunotherapies have already seen success in treating a variety of malignant disorders, and their role in managing myeloid cancers is evolving rapidly. AREAS COVERED: This is a review of the immunotherapies tested in MDS and AML, including immune checkpoint inhibitors, bispecific antibodies, and cell therapies such as chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cell therapy, T cell receptor (TCR) engineered T cells, and natural killer (NK) cells, with a focus on clinical trials conducted to date and future directions. EXPERT OPINION: Initial clinical trials exploring checkpoint inhibitors in MDS and AML have demonstrated high toxicity and disappointing efficacy. However, ongoing trials adding novel checkpoint inhibitors to standard therapy are more promising. Technological advances are improving the outlook for bispecific antibodies, and cellular therapies like adoptive NK cell infusion have favorable efficacy and tolerability in early trials. As our understanding of the immune microenvironment in MDS and AML improves, the role for immunotherapy in the treatment of these diseases will become clearer.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.659
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0090.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.049
GPT teacher head0.407
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designSystematic review
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

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of HematologySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207