Similar Outcomes of Cryopreserved Allogeneic Peripheral Stem Cell Transplants (PBSCT) Compared to Fresh Allografts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The BMT program at Princess Margaret Hospital performed 105 transplants using cryopreserved peripheral blood stem cells (PBSC) from related allogeneic donors. The outcomes were compared with those of a historic control of 106 patients transplanted with freshly procured PBSC. The infusions were tolerated with limited toxicity related to nausea/vomiting or bradycardia, correlated with the total amount of DMSO infused. The average viability of the total nucleated cell (TNC) population after thawing was 71%. The survival of clonogenic progenitors amounted to 75% for colony-forming unit-granulocyte-macrophage (CFU-GM), 69% for burst-forming units erythroid (BFU-E), and 78% for colony-forming units granulocyte-erythrocyte-monocyte-megakaryocyte (CFU-GEMM). In contrast, colony-forming units megakaryocyte (CFU-MEG) was significantly more cryosensitive with recovery rates of 39%. The number of viable CD34(+) cells transplanted was correlated with the number of transplanted viable CFU-GM (P < .001), BFU-E (P < .001), CFU-MEG (P < .001), and CFU-GEMM (P = .049), but not with the TNC dose. The number of transplanted CD34(+) cells was correlated with engraftment of neutrophils (P = .012) and platelets (P = .013). The outcomes of cryopreseved or fresh PBSC transplants (PBSCT) with respect to engraftment of neutrophils (P = .178) and platelets (P = .785), lymphocyte recovery (P = .926), acute (P = .113), and chronic graft-versus-host disease (P = .673), recurrence (P = .295), nonrelapse mortality (P = .340), and overall survival (P = .668) were not significantly different. It is therefore reasonable to consider the option of cryopreserved allografts.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.003 | 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".