Autotransplantation <i>versus</i> HLA‐matched unrelated donor transplantation for acute myeloid leukaemia: a retrospective analysis from the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Most acute myeloid leukaemia (AML) patients lack human leucocyte antigen-identical sibling donors for transplantation. Autotransplants and unrelated donor (URD) transplants are therapeutic options. To compare autologous versus URD transplantation for AML in first (CR1) or second complete remission (CR2), we studied the outcomes of 668 autotransplants were compared with 476 URD transplants reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research. Proportional hazards regression adjusted for differences in prognostic variables. In multivariate analyses transplant-related mortality (TRM) was significantly higher and relapse lower with URD transplantation. Adjusted 3-year survival probabilities were: in CR1 57 (53-61)% with autotransplants and 44 (37-51)% URD (P = 0.002), in CR2 46 (39-53)% and 33 (28-38)% respectively (P = 0.006). Adjusted 3-year leukaemia-free survival (LFS) probabilities were: CR1 53 (48-57)% with autotransplants and 43 (36-50)% with URD (P = 0.021), CR2 39 (32-46)% and 33 (27-38)% respectively (P = 0.169). Both autologous and URD transplantation produced prolonged LFS. High TRM offsets the superior antileukaemia effect of URD transplantation. This retrospective, observational database study showed that autotransplantation, in general, offered higher 3-year survival for AML patients in CR1 and CR2. Cytogenetics, however, were known in only two-thirds of patients and treatment bias cannot be eliminated.
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 | 0.001 | 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".