MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2115149610 · doi:10.1586/1744666x.2014.920234

Risk for complications in patients with hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis who undergo hematopoietic stem cell transplantation: myeloablative versus reduced-intensity conditioning regimens

2014· review· en· W2115149610 on OpenAlexaff
Tal Schechter, Ahmed Naqvi, Sheila Weitzman

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Clinical Immunology · 2014
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders Research
Canadian institutionsSickKids FoundationUniversity of TorontoHospital for Sick Children
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosisHematopoietic stem cell transplantationInternal medicineTransplantationTotal body irradiationMacrophage activation syndromeSurgeryOncologyCyclophosphamideChemotherapyDisease

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) is the only curative option for patients with primary hemophagocytic lymphohistiocytosis (HLH) and for patients with secondary HLH who fail to respond to therapy. Advances in HSCT and supportive care measures have resulted in improved patient outcomes and decreased treatment-related mortality. Despite the overall improvement in outcome, HLH patients who undergo HSCT using myeloablative conditioning regimens are still at significant risk for complications. The HLH-94 study conducted by the Histiocyte Society reported a 30% TRM with increased pulmonary and hepatic complications. Recently, the use of reduced-intensity conditioning (RIC) regimens has shown favorable outcomes when compared to conventional HSCT and lower rate of acute complications. In this review we compare the potential complications of myeloablative and RIC regimens for HSCT in HLH patients.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.761
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.001
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.070
GPT teacher head0.419
Teacher spread0.349 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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".

Quick stats

Citations11
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of Clinical ImmunologySame topicAutoimmune and Inflammatory Disorders ResearchFrench-language works237,207