Comparison of outcome following allogeneic bone marrow transplantation with cyclophosphamide–total body irradiation versus busulphan–cyclophosphamide conditioning regimens for acute myelogenous leukaemia in first remission
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We evaluated transplant-related mortality (TRM), leukaemia relapse, leukaemia-free survival (LFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients receiving busulphan and cyclophosphamide (BuCy) or cyclophosphamide and total body irradiation (CyTBI) prior to allogeneic bone marrow transplantation (BMT) for acute myelogenous leukaemia (AML) in first remission. Outcomes of 381 human leucocyte antigen (HLA)-matched sibling transplants using BuCy were compared with 200 transplants using CyTBI performed between 1988 and 1996. The incidence of hepatic veno-occlusive disease was higher with BuCy (13%) than with CyTBI (6%) (P = 0.009). Risks of acute and chronic GVHD were similar. In multivariate analysis, relapse risk was higher in the BuCy group [relative risk (RR) = 1.72; 95% confidence interval (CI), 1.05-2.81; P = 0.031]. Eleven of 373 evaluable patients in the BuCy group had a central nervous system relapse in contrast to none of 194 evaluable patients in the CyTBI group (P = 0.016). There were no differences in TRM, LFS and OS. CyTBI conditioning may lower relapse risk but produces comparable TRM, LFS and OS to BuCy for HLA-matched sibling transplantation in first remission AML.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".