Indications and Results of HLA-Identical Sibling Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation for Sickle Cell Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although a number of published trials exist of HLA-identical sibling hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) for sickle cell disease (SCD) that span 2 decades, when and for whom this therapy should be pursued is a subject of debate. Assessments of the risks of transplant-related complications that include infertility and debilitating graft-versus-host disease and long-term quality of life after successful HCT are difficult to perform without prospective trials in transplant and nontransplant cohorts. However, it is possible to assess the risk of mortality and to compare published rates of survival in individuals with SCD treated and not treated by HCT. In this brief review, projections about mortality risk based on recent published reports are reviewed and summarized. The published data show overall survival and event-free survival rates of 95% and 92%, respectively, in children treated by HLA-identical sibling HCT. The overall survival rates in the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (N = 412) and European Blood and Marrow Transplant (N = 487) registries were 91% and 95%, respectively. These results provide broad support for the therapeutic value of HLA-identical sibling HCT for children with SCD and serve as the basis for a strong recommendation in favor of the option of HCT when a suitable donor is available. The experience of HLA-identical sibling HCT in adults with SCD is limited but appears to be similar to results in children. These preliminary observations, however, warrant further investigation.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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".