Oral decitabine/cedazuridine versus intravenous decitabine for acute myeloid leukaemia: A randomised, crossover, registration, pharmacokinetics study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
for 5-days with orally administered decitabine with cedazuridine (DEC-C), as well as the clinical efficacy and safety of DEC-C in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) who were ineligible for intensive induction chemotherapy. In all, 89 patients were randomised 1:1 to DEC-IV or oral DEC-C (days 1-5 in a 28-day treatment cycle), followed by 5 days of the other formulation in the next treatment cycle. All patients received oral DEC-C for subsequent treatment cycles until treatment discontinuation. Equivalent systemic decitabine exposures were demonstrated (5-day area under the curve ratio between the two decitabine formulations of 99.64 [90% confidence interval 91.23%, 108.80%]). Demethylation rates also were similar (≤1.1% difference). Median overall survival (OS), clinical response and safety profile with oral DEC-C were consistent with those previously observed with DEC-IV. Next-generation sequencing was performed to identify molecular abnormalities that impact OS and TP53 mutations were associated with a poor outcome. These findings support the use of oral DEC-C in patients with AML.
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 | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
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".