Beyond maximum grade: tolerability of immunotherapies, cellular therapies, and targeted agents in haematological malignancies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The increasing use of immunotherapeutic approaches, cellular therapies, and targeted agents is rapidly and profoundly changing the treatment paradigms of haematological malignancies. These novel therapies are increasingly incorporated into earlier lines of treatment. Some are administered for a fixed duration, often with curative intent, whereas others are administered chronically for disease control. The associated acute, mid-term, and long-term toxic effects can differ markedly from conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy and radiotherapy. Accumulating clinical experience and data enable identification of class-specific effects and development of consensus-based guidelines for toxicity management. In this third paper in the Series on adverse event reporting, we build on our emerging understanding of toxicity profiles of novel treatments to propose an actionable framework for improved assessment, reporting, and critical appraisal of treatment tolerability. We discuss recent insights regarding second cancers and the relevance of infectious complications, explore tolerability aspects of time-limited treatments, and suggest approaches to address gaps in tolerability assessment.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".