No increased mortality from donor or recipient hepatitis <scp>B</scp>‐ and/or hepatitis <scp>C</scp>‐positive serostatus after related‐donor allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited data exist on allogeneic transplant outcomes in recipients receiving hematopoietic cells from donors with prior or current hepatitis B (HBV) or C virus (HCV) infection (seropositive donors), or for recipients with prior or current HBV or HCV infection (seropositive recipients). Transplant outcomes are reported for 416 recipients from 121 centers, who received a human leukocyte antigen-identical related-donor allogeneic transplant for hematologic malignancies between 1995 and 2003. Of these, 33 seronegative recipients received grafts from seropositive donors and 128 recipients were seropositive. The remaining 256 patients served as controls. With comparable median follow-up (cases, 5.9 years; controls, 6.7 years), the incidence of treatment-related mortality, survival, graft-versus-host disease, and hepatic toxicity, appears similar in all cohorts. The frequencies of hepatic toxicities as well as causes of death between cases and controls were similar. Prior exposure to HBV or HCV in either the donor or the recipient should not be considered an absolute contraindication to transplant.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".