Second Allogeneic Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Patients with Fanconi Anemia and Bone Marrow Failure
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A second allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) is the sole salvage option for individuals who develop graft failure after their first HCT. Data on outcomes after second HCT in patients with Fanconi anemia (FA) are scarce. Here we report outcomes after second allogeneic HCT for FA (n = 81). The indication for second HCT was graft failure after the first HCT. Transplantations were performed between 1990 and 2012. The timing of the second HCT predicted subsequent graft failure and survival. Graft failure was high when the second HCT was performed less than 3 months from the first. The 3-month probability of graft failure was 69% when the interval between the first HCT and second HCT was less than 3 months, compared with 23% when the interval was longer (P < .001). Consequently, the 1-year survival rate was substantially lower when the interval between the first and second HCTs was less than 3 months compared with longer (23% vs 58%; P = .001). The corresponding 5-year probability of survival was 16% and 45%, respectively (P = .006). Taken together, these data suggest that fewer than one-half of patients with FA undergoing a second HCT for graft failure are long-term survivors. There is an urgent need to develop strategies to reduce the rate of graft failure after first HCT.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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".