Bibliographic record
Abstract
Canada’s Drug Agency (CDA-AMC) recommends that Blenrep in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone be reimbursed by public drug plans for the treatment of adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who have received at least 1 prior line of therapy, including lenalidomide, if certain conditions are met. Blenrep in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone should only be covered to treat adults with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma who are in relatively good health and have already tried at least 1 other lenalidomide-containing regimen for this disease. Blenrep in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone should not be reimbursed in patients who were previously treated with an anti-BCMA therapy or pomalidomide. Blenrep in combination with pomalidomide and dexamethasone should only be reimbursed if it is prescribed under the care of a clinician with expertise in the diagnosis and management of patients with multiple myeloma, and the cost of Blenrep is reduced.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.008 |
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".