Impact of Early-Onset or Worsening Anemia in Patients with Myelofibrosis Treated with Ruxolitinib: A post hoc Analysis of the JUMP Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Anemia can influence decisions regarding initiation, dosing, and discontinuation of Janus kinase inhibitor therapy for myelofibrosis. We evaluated the impact of new-onset or worsening anemia following ruxolitinib initiation on spleen response, symptom severity, and overall survival in patients with myelofibrosis. METHODS: This post hoc analysis used data from all patients enrolled in the phase 3b JUMP trial. Outcomes were stratified by presence or absence of new-onset or worsening anemia following ruxolitinib initiation, defined as hemoglobin decrease ≥15 g/L from baseline and hemoglobin <100 g/L (female)/<110 g/L (male) at Week 12, new transfusion requirement post-baseline until Week 12 (for baseline non-transfusion-dependent patients), or ≥50% increase from baseline in red blood cell transfusions through Week 12. RESULTS: Overall, 2,233 patients were included; 52.9% developed new-onset or worsening anemia up to Week 12. Ruxolitinib was associated with improvements in spleen length and myelofibrosis symptoms, regardless of the presence or absence of new-onset or worsening anemia or baseline anemia status. No differences in spleen response or overall survival were observed between patients with versus without new-onset or worsening anemia, regardless of baseline anemia status. CONCLUSIONS: These results support the use of ruxolitinib in patients with myelofibrosis, regardless of baseline anemia or development of treatment-related anemia. .
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 | 0.008 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".