Outcomes of pediatric bone marrow transplantation for leukemia and myelodysplasia using matched sibling, mismatched related, or matched unrelated donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although some trials have allowed matched or single human leukocyte antigen (HLA)-mismatched related donors (mmRDs) along with HLA-matched sibling donors (MSDs) for pediatric bone marrow transplantation in early-stage hematologic malignancies, whether mmRD grafts lead to similar outcomes is not known. We compared patients < 18 years old reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research with acute myeloid leukemia, acute lymphoblastic leukemia, chronic myeloid leukemia, and myelodysplastic syndrome undergoing allogeneic T-replete, myeloablative bone marrow transplantation between 1993 and 2006. In total, patients receiving bone marrow from 1208 MSDs, 266 8/8 allelic-matched unrelated donors (URDs), and 151 0-1 HLA-antigen mmRDs were studied. Multivariate analysis showed that recipients of MSD transplants had less transplantation-related mortality, acute graft-versus-host disease (GVHD), and chronic GVHD, along with better disease-free and overall survival than the URD and mmRD groups. No differences were observed in transplant-related mortality, acute and chronic GVHD, relapse, disease-free survival, or overall survival between the mmRD and URD groups. These data show that mmRD and 8/8 URD outcomes are similar, whereas MSD outcomes are superior to the other 2 sources. Whether allele level typing could identify mmRD recipients with better outcomes will not be known unless centers alter practice and type mmRD at the allele level.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 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".