A Prospective Study Comparing the Outcomes and Health-Related Quality of Life in Adult Patients with Myeloid Malignancies Undergoing Allogeneic Transplantation Using Myeloablative or Reduced-Intensity Conditioning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared the outcomes including health-related quality of life (HRQOL) in adult patients undergoing allogeneic transplantation using myeloablative conditioning (MAC) or reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC). This outcome study was a nonrandomized, prospective, observational noninferiority study, and primarily designed to determine whether RIC was as effective as MAC for myeloid malignancies. Comprehensive longitudinal assessment of HRQOL was done at baseline, day 30, day 100, day 180, and day 365 using validated instruments. A total of 115 patients (MAC, 51; RIC, 64) participated in this study. Of these 115 patients, 105 (91%) participated for HRQOL assessments. The main indication for HCT was acute myeloid leukemia (72%). Except age (median 41 vs 59 years, P < .0001), baseline characteristics were similar in patients undergoing MAC and RIC, respectively. Progression-free survival (PFS) at 1 year was 59% (SE = 7%) and 53% (SE = 6%) for the patients undergoing MAC and RIC, respectively (90% confidence interval [CI] -9% to +21%, P = .53). No significant difference in overall survival (OS), cumulative incidents of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD, cGVHD), nonrelapse mortality (NRM) or relapse was observed in the 2 cohorts. The trajectory of decline and recovery of HRQOL was similar between the 2 cohorts. We conclude that clinical outcomes and HRQOL in patients with myeloid malignancies undergoing RIC are not inferior to MAC at 1 year.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".