Comparing Outcomes with Bone Marrow or Peripheral Blood Stem Cells as Graft Source for Matched Sibling Transplants in Severe Aplastic Anemia across Different Economic Regions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Bone marrow (BM) is the preferred graft source for hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) in severe aplastic anemia (SAA) compared with mobilized peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs). We hypothesized that this recommendation may not apply to those regions where patients present later in their disease course, with heavier transfusion load and with higher graft failure rates. Patients with SAA who received HSCT from an HLA-matched sibling donor from 1995 to 2009 and reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research or the Japan Society for Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation were analyzed. The study population was categorized by gross national income per capita and region/countries into 4 groups. Groups analyzed were high-income countries (HIC), which were further divided into United States-Canada (n = 486) and other HIC (n = 1264); upper middle income (UMIC) (n = 482); and combined lower-middle, low-income countries (LM-LIC) (n = 142). In multivariate analysis, overall survival (OS) was highest with BM as graft source in HIC compared with PBSCs in all countries or BM in UMIC or LM-LIC (P < .001). There was no significant difference in OS between BM and PBSCs in UMIC (P = .32) or LM-LIC (P = .23). In LM-LIC the 28-day neutrophil engraftment was higher with PBSCs compared with BM (97% versus 77%, P = .002). Chronic graft-versus-host disease was significantly higher with PBSCs in all groups. Whereas BM should definitely be the preferred graft source for HLA-matched sibling HSCT in SAA, PBSCs may be an acceptable alternative in countries with limited resources when treating patients at high risk of graft failure and infective complications.
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) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".