Comparison of Short-Term Response and Long-Term Outcomes after Initial Systemic Treatment of Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Clinical trials of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) often use early endpoints, such as clinical response at 3 or 6 months, as the primary endpoint instead of measures of long-term treatment success, such as the ability to discontinue immunosuppressive treatment after development of immune tolerance and resolution of active disease. We evaluated the ability of defined overall and organ-specific response categories at 3 and 6 months to predict the subsequent success or failure of primary treatment. The analysis included 116 patients evaluated at 3 months after enrollment and 94 patients evaluated at 6 months after enrollment. Success was defined as withdrawal of systemic treatment after resolution of cGVHD without secondary therapy. Failure was defined as secondary systemic treatment, or death or development of bronchiolitis obliterans during primary treatment. With most definitions, response at 3 months and response at 6 months were not statistically significantly correlated with subsequent success of primary treatment. With some definitions, the absence of response at 6 months had a statistically significant correlation with subsequent failure of primary treatment. These findings suggest that early response to the agents currently used for primary treatment does not necessarily predict subsequent tolerance, an important endpoint in the management of cGVHD. Rigorously defined clinical response is an appropriate primary endpoint for studies of cGVHD, but future clinical trials should provide for extended follow-up to ascertain late outcomes that are not necessarily predictable by evaluation of response before 6 months. Clinical trials of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) often use early endpoints, such as clinical response at 3 or 6 months, as the primary endpoint instead of measures of long-term treatment success, such as the ability to discontinue immunosuppressive treatment after development of immune tolerance and resolution of active disease. We evaluated the ability of defined overall and organ-specific response categories at 3 and 6 months to predict the subsequent success or failure of primary treatment. The analysis included 116 patients evaluated at 3 months after enrollment and 94 patients evaluated at 6 months after enrollment. Success was defined as withdrawal of systemic treatment after resolution of cGVHD without secondary therapy. Failure was defined as secondary systemic treatment, or death or development of bronchiolitis obliterans during primary treatment. With most definitions, response at 3 months and response at 6 months were not statistically significantly correlated with subsequent success of primary treatment. With some definitions, the absence of response at 6 months had a statistically significant correlation with subsequent failure of primary treatment. These findings suggest that early response to the agents currently used for primary treatment does not necessarily predict subsequent tolerance, an important endpoint in the management of cGVHD. Rigorously defined clinical response is an appropriate primary endpoint for studies of cGVHD, but future clinical trials should provide for extended follow-up to ascertain late outcomes that are not necessarily predictable by evaluation of response before 6 months.
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) | 0.001 | 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".