One-Antigen Mismatched Related versus HLA-Matched Unrelated Donor Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Adults with Acute Leukemia: Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research Results in the Era of Molecular HLA Typing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Approximately 13% of patients lacking an HLA-identical sibling have a one-antigen-mismatched related donor (MMRD). Historically, outcomes from the use of a one-antigen MMRD were considered equivalent to those from the use of a matched unrelated donor (UD). Recent improvements in UD stem cell transplantation (SCT) resulting from better molecular HLA matching justifies investigating whether UD should be preferred over MMRD in adult patients with acute leukemia. Here, we compared the outcomes of MMRD (n = 89) and HLA-A, -B, -C, and -DRB1 allele-matched UD (n = 700) SCT reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research between 1995 and 2005. The patients underwent transplantation for acute myelogenous leukemia or acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first or second complete remission. Donor type was not associated with hematologic recovery. Univariate and multivariate comparisons of MMRD versus HLA-matched UD transplants showed no statistically significant differences in overall survival, disease-free survival, treatment-related mortality, relapse, or 100-day grade III-IV acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). MMRD SCT was associated with a lower rate of chronic GVHD at 1 year (35% vs 47%; P = .03), which was confirmed by multivariate analysis (relative risk, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.85; P < .01). According to our data, HLA-matched UD and MMRD SCT are associated with comparable survival. Given that less chronic GVHD was observed in the MMRD transplantations, this option, when available, remains the first choice in patients with acute leukemia without an HLA-identical sibling in need of allogeneic SCT.
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 | 0.005 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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 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".