MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W7116052349 · doi:10.1177/20406207251401313

The efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 antibody for the treatment of B-ALL: a systematic review and meta-analysis

2025· article· en· W7116052349 on OpenAlexaboutno aff

Bibliographic record

VenueTherapeutic Advances in Hematology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisClinical trialAdverse effectAntibodySystematic reviewRandomized controlled trialMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Several clinical trials with anti-CD20 antibodies have successfully treated Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia. Nevertheless, systematic comparisons between different anti-CD20 antibody trials are rare, and a comprehensive evaluation of their efficacy and safety has yet to be performed. The purpose of this systematic review and meta-analysis was to assess the efficacy and safety of anti-CD20 antibodies in the treatment of acute lymphoblastic leukemia and to guide clinical decision-making regarding the use of anti-CD20 antibody therapy. According to the PRISMA guidelines, Embase, Cochrane Library, PubMed, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched for clinical trials conducted up to November 1, 2024, for the evaluation of anti-CD20 antibodies (rituximab, obinutuzumab, and ofatumumab) and corresponding controls. After screening the literature and extracting data, study quality was assessed using the Cochrane ROB 2 tool (RCTs) and the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (cohorts). Heterogeneity was assessed using the I² test. Based on the results of the heterogeneity test, meta-analysis was performed in RevMan 5.4 software with either a random-effects model or a fixed-effects model. We combined data from eight studies ( n = 1330 patients, including two RCTs and six cohorts). Meta-analysis showed that anti-CD20 monoclonal antibodies significantly improved overall survival (OR = 1.89, 95% CI: 1.21–2.95, p = 0.005) and event-free survival [OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.32–2.14, p < 0.0001] after >1-year follow-up, and increased complete remission rates ( p < 0.05). No significant differences were observed in common adverse events between groups. Subgroup analyses by study type did not alter these conclusions. Overall, anti-CD20 antibody therapy was more efficacious than the corresponding control and did not increase the incidence of grade 3–4 adverse events. Ofatumumab may be a more effective anti-CD20 antibody for the treatment of ALL.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.015
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: Meta-analysis
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.082

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0150.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0030.002
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0220.046
Bibliometrics0.0100.009
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0040.002
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.044
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.369 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designMeta-analysis
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueTherapeutic Advances in HematologySame topicAcute Lymphoblastic Leukemia researchFrench-language works237,207