HLA-A Disparities Illustrate Challenges for Ranking the Impact of HLA Mismatches on Bone Marrow Transplant Outcomes in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
HLA disparity between hematopoietic stem cell donors and recipients is one of the most important factors influencing transplant outcomes, but there are no well-accepted guidelines to aid in selecting the optimal donor among several HLA mismatched donors. In this report, HLA-A is used as a model to illustrate factors that are barriers to delineating the relationship between specific HLA mismatches and transplant outcomes in the United States. Patients in this investigation received transplants for hematologic malignancies that were facilitated by the National Marrow Donor Program (NMDP) between 1990 and 2002 (n = 4226). High-resolution HLA typing was performed for HLA-A, -B, -C, -DRB1, -DQA1, -DQB1, -DPA1, and -DPB1. HLA-A mismatches were observed in 745 donor-recipient pairs and 62% of these pairs also had disparities at HLA-B, -C, and/or -DRB1. The HLA-A mismatches involved 190 different combinations of HLA-A alleles and 51% of these were observed in only 1 pair. Addition of a single HLA-A disparity when HLA-B, -C, and -DRB1 were matched (n = 282) was associated with increased mortality (odds ratio [OR] = 1.32, confidence interval [CI] 1.07-1.63). When HLA-B, -C, and -DRB1 were matched, the most frequent HLA-A mismatches were HLA-A*0201:0205 (n = 28), HLA-A *0301:0302 (n = 15), HLA-A *0201:0206 (n = 15), HLA-A *0201:6801 (n = 12), HLA-A*0101:1101 (n = 11), and HLA-A*0101:0201 (n = 10). There were no statistically significant relationships between any of these disparities and transplant outcomes (engraftment, acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease [aGVHD, cGVHD] relapse, treatment-related mortality [TRM], or overall survival [OS]) when adjustments for multiple comparisons were considered. Achieving 80% power to detect an effect of any 1 of these 6 HLA-A disparities on survival is estimated to require a total transplant population of 11,000 to more than 1 million U.S. donor-recipient pairs depending upon the HLA disparity. Thus, alternative approaches are required to develop a clinically relevant ranking system for specific HLA disparities in the United States.
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 | 0.007 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".