Haematopoietic stem cell transplantation for refractory Langerhans cell histiocytosis: outcome by intensity of conditioning
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Patients with Langerhans cell histiocytosis (LCH) refractory to conventional chemotherapy have a poor outcome. There are currently two promising treatment strategies for high-risk patients: the first involves the combination of 2-chlorodeoxyadenosine and cytarabine; the other approach is allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Here we evaluated 87 patients with high-risk LCH who were transplanted between 1990 and 2013. Prior to the year 2000, most patients underwent HSCT following myeloablative conditioning (MAC): only 5 of 20 patients (25%) survived with a high rate (55%) of transplant-related mortality (TRM). After the year 2000 an increasing number of patients underwent HSCT with reduced intensity conditioning (RIC): 49/67 (73%) patients survived, however, the improved survival was not overtly achieved by the introduction of RIC regimens with similar 3-year probability of survival after MAC (77%) and RIC transplantation (71%). There was no significant difference in TRM by conditioning regimen intensity but relapse rates were higher after RIC compared to MAC regimens (28% vs. 8%, P = 0·02), although most patients relapsing after RIC transplantation could be salvaged with further chemotherapy. HSCT may be a curative approach in 3 out of 4 patients with high risk LCH refractory to chemotherapy: the optimal choice of HSCT conditioning remains uncertain.
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.
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 it