Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents in allogeneic and autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents (ESAs) are used in treating cancer- and chemotherapy-induced anemia with the aim of accelerating the recovery of red blood cells (RBCs), reduce the risks associated with RBC transfusions and improve quality of life. AREAS COVERED: A systematic review has been conducted to examine the current evidence for the efficacy and safety of using ESAs in hematopoietic stem cell transplants (HSCTs). EXPERT OPINION: Despite the international recommendations for the use of ESAs in treating different malignancies, there is a lack of guidelines for their use in patients undergoing HSCT. An evaluation of published clinical trials shows that there are no available powerful studies concerning the use of ESAs in this setting, with only heterogeneous and small numbers of patients reported so far. Nevertheless, the more robust and intriguing of these data suggest that the ESA's administration at an appropriate time after the infusion of stem cells may be effective both in autologous and allogeneic HSCTs. New guidelines are required, overseen by an expert in the in the field of stem cell transplantation.
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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".