Establishment of Definitions and Review Process for Consistent Adjudication of Cause-specific Mortality after Allogeneic Unrelated-donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials commonly use adjudication committees to refine endpoints, but observational research or genome-wide association studies rarely do. Our goals were to establish definitions of cause-specific death after unrelated-donor allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (URD-HCT), to estimate discordance between reported and adjudicated cause-specific death, and to identify factors contributing to inconsistency in cause-specific death determination. A consensus panel adjudicated cause-specific death in 1484 patients who died within 1 year after HCT, derived from 3532 acute leukemia or myelodysplasia patients after URD-HCT from 2000 to 2011 reported by 151 US transplant centers to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Deaths were classified as disease-related or transplant-related. The panel agreed with >99% of deaths reported by centers as disease-related and 80% reported as transplant-related. Year of transplant (cohort effect) and disease status significantly influenced agreement between the panel and centers. Sensitivity analysis of deaths < 100 days post-transplant yielded the lowest agreement between the panel and centers for myelodysplastic syndrome patients. Standard predefined criteria for adjudicating cause-specific death led to consistent application to similar clinical scenarios and clearer delineation of cause-specific death categories. Other studies of competing events such as cancer-specific versus treatment-related mortality would benefit from our results. Our detailed algorithm should result in more consistent reporting of cause-specific death by centers.
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 | 0.525 | 0.533 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.051 | 0.025 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.008 | 0.006 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.013 | 0.010 |
| Open science | 0.014 | 0.012 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.005 |
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".