Skip to main content
Search

The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center

3 related articles

Subscribe to updates
  1. bioRxiv

    No fixed target for tongue motor networks: individualized AI neuromodulation lifts target-state occupancy from 82% to 97%

    The individualized AI-driven fMRI neuromodulation platform iNM abandons a single fixed set of brain targets and instead builds a neurofunctional twin from each participant's own anatomy and function, reinforcing the tongue sensorimotor network in a closed loop at 2-second resolution. In healthy participants, an unsupervised hidden Markov model showed target-state occupancy rising from 82% under control to 97%, swallow-related interference falling from 18% to 3%, and connectivity among motor, sensory and attention networks strengthening by 53% to 74%, with effects persisting after modulation stopped.

  2. LLM-assisted chart review lifts skin-toxicity F1 from 0.77 to 0.88 and cuts reported review time by about a third

    Identifying cutaneous immune-related adverse events (cirAEs) in outpatient notes of patients on immune checkpoint inhibitors has depended on manual chart review, which is slow and inconsistent between reviewers. In a multi-institution study, non-dermatologist reviewers adjudicated with a retrieval-augmented, multi-agent large language model that returned a binary recommendation plus the supporting note excerpts. Against ground truth from an oncodermatologist, the assisted group reached F1 0.88 and Cohen's κ 0.82 versus 0.77 and 0.50 for manual review, and reviewers self-reported a drop from 15 to 10 minutes per chart.

  3. Cancer

    CIBMTR real-world data: about one-third of multiple myeloma patients receiving cilta-cel are frail, with 12-month PFS of 62.7% and OS of 72.8% and doubled ICANS risk

    Using Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research registry data, this study evaluated 541 patients with relapsed/refractory multiple myeloma who received commercial cilta-cel between March 2022 and December 2023 and found that 183 (33.8%) were frail by an adapted simplified frailty score; overall response rates were comparable (82.8% vs. 88.5%), but frail patients had worse 12-month progression-free survival (62.7% vs. 75.9%) and overall survival (72.8% vs. 90.4%) and more any-grade ICANS (32.2% vs. 17.6%), with frailty independently predicting worse PFS (HR 1.67), OS (HR 2.46), and any-grade ICANS (OR 2.01) on multivariable analysis.

You’re all caught up