Radiation-Induced Lymphopenia and Its Impact on Survival in Patients with Brain Metastasis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Differences in radiation-induced lymphopenia and prognosis between methods of radiotherapy (RT) for brain metastases remain unclear. Methods: In this retrospective analysis of patients who underwent whole-brain radiotherapy (WBRT) or stereotactic radiosurgery/radiotherapy (SRS/SRT) for brain metastases, baseline total lymphocyte count (TLC) data were obtained within 2 weeks before RT initiation. Follow-up TLC data were evaluated at 0–2, 2–4, and 4–8 weeks after RT completion. Persistent lymphopenia was defined as <800/μL at any time point. Results: Overall, 138 RT courses in 128 patients were eligible (94 WBRT; 44 SRS/SRT). In the WBRT courses, the median baseline TLC was 1325/μL (IQR: 923–1799). Follow-up TLC decreased significantly to 946/μL (626–1316), 992/μL (675–1291), and 1075/μL (762–1435) (p < 0.001). SRS/SRT courses showed no significant TLC decrease. Multivariate analysis revealed female sex, prior RT, baseline TLC < 800/μL, and WBRT use were significantly associated with persistent lymphopenia. In the WBRT group, overall survival was significantly different between those with and without persistent lymphopenia (median, 2.6 and 6.1 months; p < 0.001). However, there was no significant difference in survival in the SRS/SRT group (p = 0.60). Conclusion: This study suggests SRS/SRT might be preferable for lymphocyte preservation in brain metastasis patients.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".