Differential effects of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor on marrow- and blood-derived hematopoietic and immune cell populations in healthy human donors
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A recent phase III trial comparing granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF)-stimulated bone marrow (G-BM) and G-CSF-mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) in matched sibling allograft recipients showed that G-BM produced a similar hematologic recovery but a reduced incidence of extensive chronic graft-versus-host disease, indicating differences in the cell populations infused. As a first step toward identifying these differences, we treated a group of healthy adult humans with 4 daily doses of G-CSF 10 microg/kg and monitored the effects on various hematopoietic and immune cell types in the PB and BM over 12 days. G-CSF treatment caused rapid and large but transient increases in the number of circulating CD34+ cells, colony-forming cells, and long-term culture-initiating cells and in the short-term repopulating activity detectable in nonobese diabetic/severe combined immunodeficiency/beta2-microglobulin-null mice. Similar but generally less marked changes occurred in the same cell populations in the BM. G-CSF also caused transient perturbations in some immune cell types in both PB and BM: these included a greater increase in the frequency of naive B cells and CD123+ dendritic cells in the BM. The rapidity of the effects of G-CSF on the early progenitor activity of the BM provides a rationale for the apparent equivalence in rates of hematologic recovery obtained with G-BM and G-PB allotransplants. Accompanying effects on immune cell populations are consistent with a greater ability of G-BM to promote tolerance in allogeneic recipients, and this could contribute to a lower rate of chronic graft-versus-host disease.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".