Comparison of Outcomes after Transplantation of G-CSF–Stimulated Bone Marrow Grafts versus Bone Marrow or Peripheral Blood Grafts from HLA-Matched Sibling Donors for Patients with Severe Aplastic Anemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We compared outcomes of patients with severe aplastic anemia (SAA) who received granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF)-stimulated bone marrow (G-BM) (n = 78), unstimulated bone marrow (BM) (n = 547), or peripheral blood progenitor cells (PBPC) (n = 134) from an HLA-matched sibling. Transplantations occurred in 1997 to 2003. Rates of neutrophil and platelet recovery were not different among the 3 treatment groups. Grade 2-4 acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) (relative risk [RR] = 0.82, P = .539), grade 3-4 aGVHD (RR = 0.74, P = .535), and chronic GVHD (cGVHD) (RR = 1.56, P = .229) were similar after G-BM and BM transplants. Grade 2-4 aGVHD (RR = 2.37, P = .012) but not grade 3-4 aGVHD (RR = 1.66, P = .323) and cGVHD (RR = 5.09, P < .001) were higher after PBPC transplants compared to G-BM. Grade 2-4 (RR = 2.90, P < .001), grade 3-4 (RR = 2.24, P = .009) aGVHD and cGVHD (RR = 3.26, P < .001) were higher after PBPC transplants compared to BM. Mortality risks were lower after transplantation of BM compared to G-BM (RR = 0.63, P = .05). These data suggest no advantage to using G-BM and the observed higher rates of aGVHD and cGVHD in PBPC recipients warrants cautious use of this graft source for SAA. Taken together, BM is the preferred graft for HLA-matched sibling transplants for SAA.
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 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".