Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplant for Prolymphocytic Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The poor prognosis of patients with prolymphocytic leukemia (PLL) has led some clinicians to recommend allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT). However, the data to support this approach is limited to case-reports and small case series. We reviewed the database of the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR) to determine outcomes after allotransplant for patients with PLL. We identified 47 patients with a median age of 54 years (range: 30-75 years). With a median follow-up of 13 months, progression-free survival (PFS) was 33% (95% confidence interval [CI] 20%-47%) at 1 year. The most common cause of death was relapse or progression in 49%. The cumulative incidence of treatment-related mortality (TRM) at 1-year posttransplant was 28%. The small patient population prohibited prognostic factor analysis, but these data support consideration of allotransplant for PLL. Further study of a larger population of patients is needed to determine which patients are more likely to benefit.
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 | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".