ABO Blood Group Barrier in Allogeneic Bone Marrow Transplantation Revisited
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reports have shown a worse outcome for donor-recipient pairs mismatched for ABO blood groups in bone marrow transplantation (BMT). These studies, however, included small and heterogeneous study populations, and not all considered bidirectional ABO incompatibility separately. Because the issue remains controversial, we analyzed the effect of ABO mismatch on the overall survival, transplant-related mortality, and occurrence of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) in a large homogenous group of patients undergoing allogeneic BMT. A total of 3103 patients with early-stage leukemia who underwent transplantation between 1990 and 1998 with bone marrow from an HLA-identical sibling and who were reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research were studied. The median follow-up was 54 months. A total of 2108 (67.9%) donor-recipient pairs were ABO identical, 451 (14.5%) had a minor mismatch, 430 (13.9%) had a major mismatch, and 114 (3.7%) had a bidirectional ABO mismatch. The groups did not differ significantly in patient or donor characteristics except for more female-to-male sex mismatch in the bidirectional ABO mismatch group (P = .017). In multivariate models of overall survival, transplant-related mortality, and grade II to IV acute GVHD, there were no significant differences among the 4 groups. Bidirectional ABO mismatch was associated with a significantly higher risk of grade III or IV acute GVHD (hazard ratio, 1.869; 95% confidence interval, 1.192-2.93; P = .006). Patients with major ABO mismatch received red blood cell transfusions (P = .001) for a longer timer after transplantation and had a slightly slower neutrophil recovery (P < .001). There was no evidence of a substantial effect of ABO blood group incompatibility on the outcome of conventional BMT among patients with leukemia.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".