Mycophenolate‐based graft versus host disease prophylaxis is not inferior to methotrexate in myeloablative‐related donor stem cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We retrospectively reviewed 242 patients who received related donor myeloablative peripheral blood hematopoietic cell transplantation. We compared patients who received mycophenolate (MMF)/cyclosporine (CSA) (n = 71), to historical controls who received methotrexate (MTX)/CSA (n = 172). There were no differences in overall survival, nonrelapse mortality, and relapse. The MMF/CSA group had significantly faster neutrophil and platelet engraftment: medians of 13 versus 18 days and 10 versus 14 days, respectively (P = 0.001). The cumulative incidence of acute graft versus host disease (GVHD) (Grades, 2-4) was significantly lower in the MMF/CSA group (45.1 vs. 74.4%, P < 0.001). The MMF/CSA group showed a lower incidence of skin (51.5 vs. 72.1%, P < 0.001) and liver acute GVHD (11.3 vs. 54.2%, P < 0.001) and a higher incidence of lung (42.2 vs. 19.0%, P = 0.045), eye (59.7 vs. 30.1%, P < 0.001), and mouth (72.8 vs. 56.4%, P = 0.001) chronic GVHD but only eye chronic GVHD was confirmed in propensity score matching (PSM) analysis. The incidence of cytomegalovirus (CMV) viremia was higher in the MMF/CSA group (55.8 vs. 39.6%, P < 0.001) but this was not confirmed in PSM analysis. MMF/CSA was identified as an independent favorable factor for acute GVHD (P < 0.001, hazard ratio, 0.41) but as a possible adverse risk factor for CMV viremia as this was not found to be statistically significant in PSM analysis. MMF/CSA in myeloablative matched related donor peripheral blood stem cell transplant is not inferior as GVHD prophylaxis in comparison with MTX/CSA and is associated with faster engraftment but a potentially higher risk of CMV viremia.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".