The outcome of full-intensity and reduced-intensity conditioning matched sibling or unrelated donor transplantation in adults with Philadelphia chromosome–negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia in first and second complete remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We examined the efficacy of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) and compared outcomes of 93 patients older than 16 years after RIC with 1428 patients receiving full-intensity conditioning for allografts using sibling and unrelated donors for Philadelphia-negative acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) in first or second complete remission. RIC conditioning included busulfan 9 mg/kg or less (27), melphalan 150 mg/m(2) or less (23), low-dose total body irradiation (TBI; 36), and others (7). The RIC group was older (median 45 vs 28 years, P < .001) and more received peripheral blood grafts (73% vs 43%, P < .001) but had similar other prognostic factors. The RIC versus full-intensity conditioning groups had slightly, but not significantly, less acute grade II-IV graft-versus-host disease (39% vs 46%) and chronic graft-versus-host disease (34% vs 42%), yet similar transplantation-related mortality. RIC led to slightly more relapse (35% vs 26%, P = .08) yet similar age-adjusted survival (38% vs 43%, P = .39). Multivariate analysis showed that conditioning intensity did not affect transplantation-related mortality (P = .92) or relapse risk (P = .14). Multivariate analysis demonstrated significantly improved overall survival with: Karnofsky performance status more than 80, first complete remission, lower white blood count, well-matched unrelated or sibling donors, transplantation since 2001, age younger than 30 years, and conditioning with TBI, but no independent impact of conditioning intensity. RIC merits further investigation in prospective trials of adult ALL.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".