Validation of National Institutes of Health Global Scoring System for Chronic Graft-Versus-Host Disease (GVHD) According to Overall and GVHD-Specific Survival
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A new severity grading system for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) was established by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) consensus criteria (NCC). However, its prognostic value still needs to be validated. Four hundred twenty-five consecutive patients who survived beyond 100 days after allogeneic stem cell transplantation were reviewed and reclassified using NCC. GVHD-specific survival (GSS) and cumulative incidence of relapse were compared according to the NIH global score at the onset and peak of chronic GVHD (cGVHD). Of 346 patients with cGVHD diagnosed by the Revised Seattle Criteria, 317 patients were reclassified according to the NCC as classic cGVHD (n = 144) and overlap syndrome (n = 173). The NIH global scores at onset were mild (43.2%), moderate (42.3%), and severe (14.5%), whereas more moderate (55.5%) and severe (31.6%) cGVHD was observed at the peak of cGVHD. With a median follow-up duration of 34 months, the 5-year GSS was significantly worse for the severe group than the moderate/mild groups at onset and at peak: 50.9% ± 7.8% versus 89.7% ± 3.2% versus 93.5% ± 2.4% at onset (P < .001) and 69.1% ± 5.2% versus 93.2% ± 2.1% versus 97.3% ± 2.7% at peak (P < .001). Severe NIH global score at onset and peak were confirmed as a poor prognostic factor for GSS in multivariate analysis. The cumulative incidence of relapse did not differ among the severity groups at onset or peak. In conclusion, the new NIH global scoring system was shown to differentiate a high-risk group of patients (with severe grade cGVHD) in terms of long-term transplant outcomes.
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 | 0.012 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".