MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2346889494 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2016.04.017

Filgrastim-Stimulated Bone Marrow Compared with Filgrastim-Mobilized Peripheral Blood in Myeloablative Sibling Allografting for Patients with Hematologic Malignancies: A Randomized Canadian Blood and Marrow Transplant Group Study

2016· article· en· W2346889494 on OpenAlexaffabout
Stephen Couban, Mahmoud Aljurf, Irwin Walker, Cynthia L. Toze, Morel Rubinger, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Stephanie J. Lee, Jeff Szer, Richard Doocey, Ian D. Lewis, Lothar Huebsch, Kang Howson‐Jan, Michel Lalancette, Fahad Almohareb, N Chaudhri, Sabine Ivison, Raewyn Broady, Megan K. Levings, Diane L. Fairclough, Gerald M. Devins, David Szwajcer, Ronan Foley, Clayton A. Smith, Tony Panzarella, Holly Kerr, Amina Kariminia, Kirk R. Schultz

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsBC Children's HospitalLondon Health Sciences CentreUniversity of OttawaWestern UniversityUniversity of TorontoUniversity of ManitobaOttawa HospitalCapital District Health AuthorityCancerCare ManitobaPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreVancouver General HospitalUniversity of British ColumbiaHôtel-Dieu de QuébecBC Cancer AgencyMcMaster UniversityUniversité de MontréalHôpital Maisonneuve-RosemontNova Scotia Health AuthorityHamilton Health SciencesDalhousie University
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicineFilgrastimInternal medicineHazard ratioCumulative incidenceBone marrowGastroenterologyTransplantationGraft-versus-host diseaseConfidence intervalClinical endpointSurgeryHematopoietic stem cell transplantationRandomized controlled trialGranulocyte colony-stimulating factorChemotherapy

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In adult hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT), filgrastim-mobilized peripheral blood (G-PB) has largely replaced unstimulated marrow for allografting. Although the use of G-PB results in faster hematopoietic recovery, it is also associated with more chronic graft-versus-host disease (cGVHD). A potential alternative allograft is filgrastim-stimulated marrow (G-BM), which we hypothesized may be associated with prompt hematopoietic recovery but with less cGVHD. We conducted a phase 3, open-label, multicenter randomized trial of 230 adults with hematologic malignancies receiving allografts from siblings after myeloablative conditioning to compare G-PB with G-BM. The primary endpoint was time to treatment failure, defined as a composite of extensive cGVHD, relapse/disease progression, and death. With a median follow-up of 36 months (range, 9.6 to 48), comparing G-BM with G-PB, there was no difference between the 2 arms with respect to the primary outcome of this study (hazard ratio [HR], .91; 95% confidence interval [CI], .68 to 1.22; P = .52). However, the cumulative incidence of overall cGVHD was lower with G-BM (HR, .66; 95% CI, .46 to .95; P = .007) and there was no difference in the risk of relapse or progression (P = .35). The median times to neutrophil recovery (P = .0004) and platelet recovery (P = .012) were 3 days shorter for recipients allocated to G-PB compared with those allocated to G-BM, but there were no differences in secondary engraftment-related outcomes, such as time to first hospital discharge (P = .17). In addition, there were no graft failures in either arm. This trial demonstrates that, compared with G-PB, the use of G-BM allografts leads to a significantly lower rate of overall cGVHD without a loss of the graft-versus-tumor effect and comparable overall survival. Our findings suggest that further study of this type of allograft is warranted.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Randomized trial · Consensus signal: Randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.021
Threshold uncertainty score0.041

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.002
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0010.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.230
Teacher spread0.220 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designRandomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations26
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207