Transplantation for children with acute myeloid leukemia: a comparison of outcomes with reduced intensity and myeloablative regimens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The safety and efficacy of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens for the treatment of pediatric acute myeloid leukemia is unknown. We compared the outcome of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation in children with acute myeloid leukemia using RIC regimens with those receiving myeloablative-conditioning (MAC) regimens. A total of 180 patients were evaluated (39 with RIC and 141 with MAC regimens). Results of univariate and multivariate analysis showed no significant differences in the rates of acute and chronic graft-versus-host disease, leukemia-free, and overall survival between treatment groups. The 5-year probabilities of overall survival with RIC and MAC regimens were 45% and 48%, respectively (P = .99). Moreover, relapse rates were not higher with RIC compared with MAC regimens (39% vs 39%; P = .95), and recipients of MAC regimens were not at higher risk for transplant-related mortality compared with recipients of RIC regimens (16% vs 16%; P = .73). After carefully controlled analyses, we found that in this relatively modest study population, the data supported a role for RIC regimens for acute myeloid leukemia in children undergoing allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. The data also provided justification for designing a carefully controlled randomized clinical trial that examines the efficacy of regimen intensity in this population.
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) | 0.001 | 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".