Outcomes of Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Adolescent and Young Adults Compared with Children and Older Adults with Acute Myeloid Leukemia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents and young adults (AYAs) with cancer have not experienced improvements in survival to the same extent as children and older adults. We compared outcomes among children (<15 years), AYAs (15-40 years) and older adults (>40 years) receiving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (HCT) for acute myeloid leukemia (AML). Our cohort consisted of 900 children, 2,708 AYA, and 2,728 older adult recipients of HLA-identical sibling or unrelated donor (URD) transplantation using myeloablative or reduced-intensity/nonmyeloablative conditioning. Outcomes were assessed over three time periods (1980-1988, 1989-1997, 1998-2005) for siblings and two time periods (1989-1997, 1998-2005) for URD HCT. Analyses were stratified by donor type. Results showed overall survival for AYAs using either siblings or URD improved over time. Although children had better and older adults had worse survival compared with AYAs, improvements in survival for AYAs did not lag behind those for children and older adults. After sibling donor HCT, 5-year adjusted survival for the three time periods was 40%, 48%, and 53% for children, 35%, 41%, and 42% for AYAs, and 22%, 30%, and 34% for older adults. Among URD HCT recipients, 5-year adjusted survival for the two time periods was 38% and 37% for children, 24% and 28% for AYAs, and 19% and 23% for older adults. Improvements in survival occurred because of a reduction in risk of treatment-related mortality. The risk of relapse did not change over time. Improvements in survival among AYAs undergoing allogeneic HCT for AML have paralleled those among children and older adults.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".