Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This report seeks to validate some of the findings in animal models of cancer chemotherapy with observations in the real-world management of endemic Burkitt lymphoma in Nigerian children between 1979 and 1986. Materials and Methods: Between 1979 and 1981, a period of relative affluence in Nigeria, children with Burkitt lymphoma were treated with an induction course of four 14-day cycles of combination regimens: vincristine 1.4 mg/m2 on day 1, cyclophosphamide 1000 mg/m2 on day 1, methotrexate 12.5 mg/m2 on day 2, 3 and 4, and intrathecal treatment with methotrexate 12.5/m2 or cytosine arabinoside 50mg/m2 on day 1 and day 5 of 4 cycles, followed by 4-6 28-day cycles as maintenance. By 1981-1983, socioeconomic challenges led to loss of treatment quality, including variability in dose intensity and duration. Between 1984 and 1986, the children were managed on a randomized phase II clinical trial, in which donated cytosine arabinoside at high doses, e.g., 1000mg/m2 IV q12 hours x 4 doses – was given, with the aim of overcoming physiological barrier for better control of central nervous system involvement. Results: Chi-square test showed strong correlation between remission rate and dose intensity of single agents and mean relative dose intensity of combination chemotherapy (p< 0.0001), while Cox proportion hazard model revealed association between progression free survival and mean relative dose intensity (p = 0.0001) regardless of central nervous system involvement (p = 0.0003). Evaluation by log-rank test revealed highly significant association between less than 42, and more than 43 to 95 treatment days and progression free survival (p<0.0001), but, counterintuitively, not with more than 95 days (p=0.809). The clinical trial regimens led to complete plus partial response rates of 100% vs 45% and progression free survival rate of 64% vs 19.7% (p=0.205), and mean relative dose intensities of 592.2 vs 102.6 (p<0.0001) in the experimental and control arms, respectively. Conclusion: The clinical manifestations of the disease as well as the treatment outcomes in correlation with treatment qualities reflect predictable observations in animal models, thus, confirming the relevance of adherence to the principles of chemotherapy in clinical practice.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".