Infection Rates among Acute Leukemia Patients Receiving Alternative Donor Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Alternative graft sources (umbilical cord blood [UCB], matched unrelated donors [MUD], or mismatched unrelated donors [MMUD]) enable patients without a matched sibling donor to receive potentially curative hematopoietic cell transplantation (HCT). Retrospective studies demonstrate comparable outcomes among different graft sources. However, the risk and types of infections have not been compared among graft sources. Such information may influence the choice of a particular graft source. We compared the incidence of bacterial, viral, and fungal infections in 1781 adults with acute leukemia who received alternative donor HCT (UCB, n= 568; MUD, n = 930; MMUD, n = 283) between 2008 and 2011. The incidences of bacterial infection at 1 year were 72%, 59%, and 65% (P < .0001) for UCB, MUD, and MMUD, respectively. Incidences of viral infection at 1 year were 68%, 45%, and 53% (P < .0001) for UCB, MUD, and MMUD, respectively. In multivariable analysis, bacterial, fungal, and viral infections were more common after either UCB or MMUD than after MUD (P < .0001). Bacterial and viral but not fungal infections were more common after UCB than MMUD (P = .0009 and <.0001, respectively). The presence of viral infection was not associated with an increased mortality. Overall survival (OS) was comparable among UCB and MMUD patients with Karnofsky performance status (KPS) ≥ 90% but was inferior for UCB for patients with KPS < 90%. Bacterial and fungal infections were associated with poorer OS. Future strategies focusing on infection prevention and treatment are indicated to improve HCT outcomes.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".