MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1976089453 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2010.02.013

Second Unrelated Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Primary Graft Failure

2010· article· en· W1976089453 on OpenAlexaff
Jeffrey Schriber, Afiba Manza‐A. Agovi, Vincent T. Ho, Karen K. Ballen, Andrea Bacigalupo, Hillard M. Lazarus, Christopher Bredeson, Vikas Gupta, Richard T. Maziarz, Gregory A. Hale, Mark R. Litzow, Brent R. Logan, Martin Bornhäuser, Roger Giller, Luis Isola, David I. Marks, J. Douglas Rizzo, Marcelo C. Pasquini

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer Centre
FundersNational Institute of Allergy and Infectious DiseasesNational Cancer InstituteOffice of Naval ResearchU.S. Department of DefenseNational Heart, Lung, and Blood InstituteU.S. Public Health Service
KeywordsMedicineHematopoietic cellTransplantationHaematopoiesisPrimary (astronomy)Hematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineStem cellGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Failure to engraft donor cells is a devastating complication after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We describe the results of 122 patients reported to the National Marrow Donor Program between 1990 and 2005, who received a second unrelated donor HCT after failing to achieve an absolute neutrophil count of ≥500/μL without recurrent disease. Patients were transplanted for leukemia (n = 83), myelodysplastic disorders (n = 16), severe aplastic anemia (n = 20), and other diseases (n = 3). The median age was 29 years. Twenty-four patients received second grafts from a different unrelated donor. Among 98 patients who received a second graft from the same donor, 28 received products that were previously collected and cryopreserved for the first transplantation. One-year overall survival (OS) after second transplant was 11%, with 10 patients alive at last follow-up. We observed no differences between patients who received grafts from the same or different donors, or in those who received fresh or cryopreserved product. The outcomes after a second allogeneic HCT for primary graft failure are dismal. Identifying risk factors for primary graft failure can decrease the incidence of this complication. Further studies are needed to test whether early recognition and hastened procurement of alternative grafts can improve transplant outcomes for primary graft failure. Failure to engraft donor cells is a devastating complication after allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). We describe the results of 122 patients reported to the National Marrow Donor Program between 1990 and 2005, who received a second unrelated donor HCT after failing to achieve an absolute neutrophil count of ≥500/μL without recurrent disease. Patients were transplanted for leukemia (n = 83), myelodysplastic disorders (n = 16), severe aplastic anemia (n = 20), and other diseases (n = 3). The median age was 29 years. Twenty-four patients received second grafts from a different unrelated donor. Among 98 patients who received a second graft from the same donor, 28 received products that were previously collected and cryopreserved for the first transplantation. One-year overall survival (OS) after second transplant was 11%, with 10 patients alive at last follow-up. We observed no differences between patients who received grafts from the same or different donors, or in those who received fresh or cryopreserved product. The outcomes after a second allogeneic HCT for primary graft failure are dismal. Identifying risk factors for primary graft failure can decrease the incidence of this complication. Further studies are needed to test whether early recognition and hastened procurement of alternative grafts can improve transplant outcomes for primary graft failure.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.029
Threshold uncertainty score0.926

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.007
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.223 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations100
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207