A charter for improving care for people living with chronic lymphocytic leukemia: six principles for excellence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia (CLL)is the most common leukemia in adults in Western countries, and its incidence is increasing. It is a complex, chronic disease with highly variable behavior. People living with CLL deserve an accurate diagnosis and should be empowered to play an active role in their care. They should be treated holistically as a person, not simply by their diagnosis. This charter has been developed with input from patient advocacy organizations, people living with CLL, and clinical specialists. It highlights the elements of care and support that matter most to people living with CLL as they navigate life with their diagnosis. We urge governments, decision-makers, healthcare providers, patient advocacy organizations, and professional organizations worldwide to embed these principles in their work and ensure they are hardwired into healthcare systems and support services to reform and improve CLL care.
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 | 0.068 | 0.094 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Open science | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.029 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.006 |
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".