Safety and Role of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy in the Management of Gastrointestinal Acute GVHD in Children After Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy and biopsy is a common procedure to confirm the diagnosis of acute graft-versus-host disease (aGVHD) in children after allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (allo-HSCT). Its safety and benefits in aGVHD management is unclear. We aimed to review the safety and benefits of GI endoscopy and biopsy for GI-aGVHD management. From January 2000 to December 2009, 450 Children received allo-HSCT at SickKids. Seventy-nine (17.5%) patients underwent GI endoscopy and biopsy for suspicion of GI-aGVHD. GI-aGVHD grading was I (n=5), II (n=39), III (n=23), and IV (n=12). GI biopsy confirmed aGVHD in 49 (62%) patients and results were negative in 30 (38%). Thirty-two (40%) patients started treatment based on clinical criteria before procedure. Twenty-four out of 79 patients had a change in therapy because of biopsy results. Treatment change was significantly more common in patients who had a positive biopsy results compared with those with negative results (24/49 vs. 4/30, P=0.02). Comparing patients who started therapy before the biopsy results (n=32) and the remaining patients (n=47) who were not started on therapy, the biopsy results had more impact in altering/starting therapy in these patients (24/47 vs. 0/32, P<0.00001). For the 32 patients who started therapy before the procedure, the biopsy confirmed aGVHD diagnosis in 20 of them (63%). Only 1 patient (1.25%) had duodenal hematoma and needed prolong GI rest and ultimately recovered. GI endoscopy and biopsy was safe and useful in guiding therapy for GI-aGVHD.
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 | 0.014 | 0.088 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".