Enhanced Risk Stratification for Children and Young Adults with B-Cell Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia: A Children’s Oncology Group Report
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Current strategies to treat pediatric acute lymphoblastic leukemia rely on risk stratification algorithms using categorical data. We investigated whether using continuous variables assigned different weights would improve risk stratification. We developed and validated a multivariable Cox model for relapse-free survival (RFS) using information from 21199 patients. We constructed risk groups by identifying cutoffs of the COG Prognostic Index (PICOG) that maximized discrimination of the predictive model. Patients with higher PICOG have higher predicted relapse risk. The PICOG reliably discriminates patients with low vs. high relapse risk. For those with moderate relapse risk using current COG risk classification, the PICOG identifies subgroups with varying 5-year RFS. Among current COG standard-risk average patients, PICOG identifies low and intermediate risk groups with 96% and 90% RFS, respectively. Similarly, amongst current COG high-risk patients, PICOG identifies four groups ranging from 96% to 66% RFS, providing additional discrimination for future treatment stratification. When coupled with traditional algorithms, the novel PICOG can more accurately risk stratify patients, identifying groups with better outcomes who may benefit from less intensive therapy, and those who have high relapse risk needing innovative approaches for cure.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".