MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4391166587 · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3851546/v1

Analysis by TeloView® Technology Predicts the Response of Hodgkin’s Lymphoma to first line ABVD Therapy

2024· preprint· en· W4391166587 on OpenAlexafffund
Hans Knecht, Nathalie A. Johnson, Marc Bienz, Pierre Brousset, Lorenzo Memeo, Yulia Shifrin, Sherif Louis, Sabine Mai

Bibliographic record

VenueResearch Square · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaMcGill UniversityJewish General Hospital
FundersDiagnostic Services Manitoba
KeywordsABVDOncologyInternal medicineMedicineDiseaseMultivariate analysisLymphomaDacarbazineBiomarkerCancerChemotherapyBiologyCyclophosphamide

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Classic Hodgkin’s lymphoma (cHL) is a curable cancer with disease-free survival rate of over 10 years. Over 80% of diagnosed patients respond favorably to first line chemotherapy. However, 15-20% of patients experience refractory or early relapsed disease. To date, the identification of such patients is still not possible using traditional clinical risk factors. The three-dimensional (3D) telomere analysis has been shown to be a reliable structural biomarker to quantify genomic instability, inform on disease progression, and predict patients’ response to therapy in several cancers, particularly hematological disorders. The 3D telomere analysis previously also elucidated biological mechanisms related to cHL disease progression. Here we report results of a multicenter retrospective clinical study including 156 cHL patients. We used the cohort data as a training dataset and identified significant 3D telomere parameters suitable to predict individual patient outcome at point of diagnosis. Multivariate analysis allowed for developing a predictive model using four telomeric parameters as predictors, including the proportion of t-stumps (very short telomeres). The percentage of t-stumps was the most prominent predictor to identify refractory/relapsing cHL prior to the initiation of ABVD therapy. The model characteristics include AUC of 0.83 in ROC analysis, sensitivity, and specificity of 0.8 and 0.75 respectively.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.404
Teacher spread0.354 · 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 designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueResearch Square→Same topicLymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment→French-language works237,207→