One-Unit versus Two-Unit Cord-Blood Transplantation for Hematologic Cancers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Umbilical-cord blood has been used as the source of hematopoietic stem cells in an estimated 30,000 transplants. The limited number of hematopoietic cells in a single cord-blood unit prevents its use in recipients with larger body mass and results in delayed hematopoietic recovery and higher mortality. Therefore, we hypothesized that the greater numbers of hematopoietic cells in two units of cord blood would be associated with improved outcomes after transplantation. METHODS: Between December 1, 2006, and February 24, 2012, a total of 224 patients 1 to 21 years of age with hematologic cancer were randomly assigned to undergo double-unit (111 patients) or single-unit (113 patients) cord-blood transplantation after a uniform myeloablative conditioning regimen and immunoprophylaxis for graft-versus-host disease (GVHD). The primary end point was 1-year overall survival. RESULTS: Treatment groups were matched for age, sex, self-reported race (white vs. nonwhite), performance status, degree of donor-recipient HLA matching, and disease type and status at transplantation. The 1-year overall survival rate was 65% (95% confidence interval [CI], 56 to 74) and 73% (95% CI, 63 to 80) among recipients of double and single cord-blood units, respectively (P=0.17). Similar outcomes in the two groups were also observed with respect to the rates of disease-free survival, neutrophil recovery, transplantation-related death, relapse, infections, immunologic reconstitution, and grade II-IV acute GVHD. However, improved platelet recovery and lower incidences of grade III and IV acute and extensive chronic GVHD were observed among recipients of a single cord-blood unit. CONCLUSIONS: We found that among children and adolescents with hematologic cancer, survival rates were similar after single-unit and double-unit cord-blood transplantation; however, a single-unit cord-blood transplant was associated with better platelet recovery and a lower risk of GVHD. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the National Cancer Institute; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00412360.).
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".