Systematic Review of Controlled Clinical Trials on the Use of Ursodeoxycholic Acid for the Prevention of Hepatic Veno-occlusive Disease in Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hepatic veno-occlusive disease (HVOD) is a serious life-threatening complication of hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT). Currently, there is no optimal therapeutic strategy and preventive measures are ill-defined. Ursodeoxycholic acid (UA) is well-tolerated oral medication that has been associated with possible benefit as a prophylactic agent. We sought to summarize and quantify the clinical effects of prophylactic UA in the context of HSCT. We undertook a systematic review of studies addressing the use of UA as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in patients undergoing HSCT. The Search Strategy included MEDLINE (1966 to fourth week of March 2006), EMBASE (1980 to fourth week of March 2006), all EBM Reviews (fourth quarter of 2005), Ovid Healthstar (1966 to fourth week of March 2006), and Google Scholar on March 20, 2006. Six studies, 4 randomized clinical trials and 2 historically controlled studies, representing 824 patients were included in the review. Three randomized clinical trials comparing prophylactic UA with no treatment demonstrated reduced proportion of HVOD (relative risk [RR], 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.17-0.66). When the analysis was limited to higher-quality studies, the beneficial effect of UA remained significant (RR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.15-0.90). Transplant-related mortality was also reduced with the prophylactic use of UA (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.35-0.95). UA did not significantly attenuate the outcomes of acute graft-versus-host disease (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.53-1.09), relapse (RR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.46-1.31), or overall survival (RR, 1.22; 95 % CI, 0.96-1.54). UA appears effective for HVOD prophylaxis in patients undergoing HSCT and should be considered as a prevention strategy by HSCT centers to reduce HVOD.
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 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.014 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".