Defibrotide for the treatment of hepatic veno‐occlusive disease in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: This retrospective report describes experience with defibrotide in children with hepatic veno-occlusive disease (HVOD) following hematopoietic progenitor cell transplant (HPCT) in a single institution. PROCEDURE: Children who had undergone HPCT between February 1999 and June 2001 and between July 2003 and September 2004 and who received defibrotide during their admission were identified. Demographic data and information regarding the clinical course of these patients were abstracted from their health records. RESULTS: Fourteen children (mean age: 9.3 years; range: 0.4-18.1) who underwent HPCT during the study period received defibrotide for the treatment of HVOD; nine were girls. Most patients underwent HPCT for hematologic malignancies (8/14) and received matched unrelated donor transplants (8/14). Conditioning regimens included cyclophosphamide with total body irradiation (5/14) and busulfan followed by cyclophosphamide (7/14). HVOD was diagnosed on transplant day -4 to +33 (median: +10.5); defibrotide was started on transplant day -4 to +40 (median: +12). The median initial defibrotide dose was 33 mg/kg/day (11-40 mg/kg/day); the median maximum defibrotide dose was 38.5 mg/kg/day (11-81 mg/kg/day). The median duration of defibrotide therapy was 16 days (4-37 days). Defibrotide was discontinued due to clinical improvement (9), death (3), drug unavailability (1), and neurological toxicity (1). Gastrointestinal hemorrhage was observed in two patients and intra-cranial hemorrhage was observed in one patient during defibrotide therapy. The survival rate to day +100 was 79%. CONCLUSIONS: Defibrotide appears to be an effective and relatively safe treatment for children with HVOD.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".