Evaluation of the Childhood Hodgkin International Prognostic Score (CHIPS) in High‐Risk Pediatric Hodgkin Lymphoma Patients Treated on Children's Oncology Group AHOD1331
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: CHIPS (Childhood Hodgkin International Prognostic Score), a predictive score for event-free-survival (EFS), was originally developed using factors presenting at diagnosis in patients with intermediate-risk Hodgkin lymphoma (HL). Prospective validation of CHIPS in patients was a pre-specified aim of AHOD1331, a trial comparing brentuximab-vedotin, doxorubicin, vincristine, etoposide, prednisone, and cyclophosphamide (Bv-AVEPC) to standard ABVE-PC (and response-adapted radiation) in children with high-risk HL. METHODS: AHOD1331 was a multicenter randomized phase 3 study. Patients were aged 2-21 years with untreated stages IIB+bulk, IIIB, IV HL. CHIPS was determined by assigning one point each for: Stage IV disease, large mediastinal adenopathy (greater than one-third thoracic diameter), albumin (<3.5 g/dL), and fever (T ≥ 38°C). Associations between CHIPS, baseline patient, and disease characteristics were tested. The validity of CHIPS to predict EFS was evaluated by both overall and within pre-specified subgroups defined by treatment arm, PET2 response, and disease stage. RESULTS: The four CHIPS components were analyzable in 576 of the 587 eligible patients. Distribution of CHIPS did not differ by study treatment arm (p = 0.158). CHIPS was significantly prognostic for EFS in this high-risk cohort (p = 0.008) and was independently predictive of EFS regardless of treatment arm, PET2 response, or stage. In subset analyses, CHIPS remained independently prognostic among patients with PET2 rapid responding lesions (RRL; p = 0.021) or Stage IVB disease (p = 0.047). CONCLUSION: CHIPS were predictive of EFS in patients with high-risk HL treated on AHOD1331. CHIPS may aid in the allocation of patients to risk-based treatment algorithms, and can serve as an effective, inexpensive, and feasible proxy for more biologically based factors.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".