Impact of Donor and Recipient Cytomegalovirus Serostatus on Outcomes of Antithymocyte Globulin–Conditioned Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although previous studies involving allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT) without in vivo T cell depletion by rabbit antithymocyte globulin (ATG) have reported a substantial survival difference between D-R- and D+R- patients, but little to no survival difference between D-R+ and D+R+ patients (D, donor; R, recipient; +, cytomegalovirus [CMV] seropositive; -, CMV seronegative), whether this applies to HCT using ATG is unknown. We studied 928 patients who underwent myeloablative HCT for hematologic malignancies in Alberta between 1999 and 2014 who received graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) prophylaxis using ATG (Thymoglobulin, 4.5 mg/kg) in addition to methotrexate and cyclosporine. D-R- and D+R- patients had similar survival (no significant difference). D-R+ patients had a substantially lower survival than D+R+ patients (41% versus 59% at 5 years; P = .001). This difference was attributed to higher nonrelapse mortality, apparently due to higher GVHD-associated mortality. Survival rates were also lower for D-R+ HLA-matched sibling transplant recipients compared with D+R+ HLA-matched unrelated donor transplant recipients (44% versus 66% at 5 years; P = .009). In conclusion, when using ATG, choosing a seronegative donor for a seronegative patient is relatively unimportant, whereas choosing a seropositive donor for a seropositive patient is important, even if this requires the use of a seropositive matched unrelated donor graft.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".