Increasing Incidence of Chronic Graft-versus-Host Disease in Allogeneic Transplantation: A Report from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although transplant practices have changed over the last decades, no information is available on trends in incidence and outcome of chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD) over time. This study used the central database of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) to describe time trends for cGVHD incidence, nonrelapse mortality, and risk factors for cGVHD. The 12-year period was divided into 3 intervals, 1995 to 1999, 2000 to 2003, and 2004 to 2007, and included 26,563 patients with acute leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndrome. Multivariate analysis showed an increased incidence of cGVHD in more recent years (odds ratio = 1.19, P < .0001), and this trend was still seen when adjusting for donor type, graft type, or conditioning intensity. In patients with cGVHD, nonrelapse mortality has decreased over time, but at 5 years there were no significant differences among different time periods. Risk factors for cGVHD were in line with previous studies. This is the first comprehensive characterization of the trends in cGVHD incidence and underscores the mounting need for addressing this major late complication of transplantation in future research.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".