MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4395464285 · doi:10.1007/s40487-024-00272-9

Identification of a Patient Suitable for CAR-T Cell Therapy in the Outpatient Setting: A Vodcast and Case Example

2024· article· en· W4395464285 on OpenAlexaff
Ronan Foley, John Kuruvilla

Bibliographic record

VenueOncology and Therapy · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCAR-T cell therapy research
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreJuravinski Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineReferralChimeric antigen receptorCAR T-cell therapyCD19Patient educationCytokine release syndromeIntensive care medicineMedical emergencyImmunotherapyInternal medicineCancerFamily medicineImmunologyAntigen

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Chimeric antigen receptor T cell (CAR-T) therapies targeting the CD19 antigen have been associated with high and durable response rates in patients with diffuse large B cell lymphoma (DLBCL). CAR-T cell therapies are commonly administered in the inpatient setting due to the average onset of cytokine release syndrome within the first 3 days post infusion, but there has been growing interest in delivering CAR-T cell therapies in the outpatient setting to overcome frequent hospital bed shortages and the high cost of inpatient care. Although this approach could improve access whilst catering to patient preference, it requires a multidisciplinary approach as well as careful patient selection. Herein, Dr. Foley and Dr. Kuruvilla discuss the case of a patient presenting with the ideal profile for CAR-T cell therapy referral whilst also determining the key attributes for eligibility from a clinician's perspective. Solutions for successful outpatient management include proper education, caregiver support, and early referral to ensure a timely infusion. In conclusion, outpatient administration of CAR-T cell therapy in patients with DLBCLs should be assessed on a case-by-case basis.A vodcast feature is available for this article.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.786
Threshold uncertainty score0.295

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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

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 head0.046
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.307 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designOther design
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

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueOncology and TherapySame topicCAR-T cell therapy researchFrench-language works237,207