MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4410069148 · doi:10.1007/s00277-025-06386-y

Intrathecal rituximab in pediatric CD20-positive central nervous system limited lymphoproliferative disease: report of two cases and literature review

2025· review· en· W4410069148 on OpenAlexaff
Huixia Gao, Ningning Zhang, Chunju Zhou, Ling Jin, Jing Yang, Shuang Huang, Meng Zhang, Nan Li, Tianyou Wang, Yanlong Duan

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of Hematology · 2025
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and Treatment
Canadian institutionsMinistry of Education and Child Care
Fundersnot available
KeywordsRituximabHematologyMedicineLymphoproliferative diseaseIntrathecalCentral nervous systemCD20DiseaseInternal medicineLymphomaLymphoproliferative disordersOncologyPathologySurgery

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Isolated central nervous system (CNS) involvement due to posttransplantation proliferative disorder (PTLD) is even rarer, with only a few cases reported in the literature. CNS involvement in patients with mature B-cell non-Hodgkin's (NHL) and PTLD confers a significantly worse prognosis as compared to patients without CNS lymphoma disease. Treatment of CNS lymphoma (CNSL) is challenging due to resistance to conventional cytotoxic and intrathecal chemotherapy. Here, we report the successful use of intrathecal rituximab in two pediatric cases of CD20 + isolated CNSL that had failed to respond to standard chemotherapy, intravenous rituximab and Epstein-Barr virus (EBV)-specific cellular therapy. However, after repeated intrathecal administration of rituximab, both patients' clinical symptoms were alleviated, which has created opportunities for further treatments. We emphasise that intrathecal rituximab may be a safe and promising strategy for the treatment of pediatric patients with CD20 + isolated CNSL. The literature on this topic was also reviewed.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.164
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0050.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.376
Teacher spread0.338 · 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.

Study designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAnnals of HematologySame topicCNS Lymphoma Diagnosis and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207