MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Immune Reconstitution After Antithymocyte Globulin (ATG)-Conditioned Hematopoietic Cell Transplantation (HCT)

2011· article· en· W2557591055 on OpenAlexaff
Mark Bosch, Manveer Dhadda, Mette Hoegh-Petersen, Yiping Liu, Laura M Hagel, Peter Podgorny, Alejandra Ugarte-Torres, Joanne Luider, Iwona Auer-Grzesiak, Adnan Mansoor, James A. Russell, Jan Storek

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsImmune systemImmunologyCD8MyeloidTransplantationHematopoietic stem cell transplantationMedicineBiologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Abstract 1981 Introduction: Immune reconstitution after HCT is important for curbing infections and malignancy. ATG has been increasingly used to prevent graft-vs-host disease (GVHD), however, its impact on immune reconstitution has not been well studied. Here we studied (1) immune reconstitution after ATG-conditioned HCT, (2) compared it to non-ATG-conditioned HCT, and (3) determined factors influencing the immune reconstitution. Patients and Methods: Immune subset cell counts were determined on day 28, 56, 84, 180, 365 and 730 post transplant in 125 recipients of allogeneic filgrastim-mobilized blood stem cells who received ATG (Thymoglobulin, 4.5 mg/kg) during conditioning. The subset counts were also determined in 47 non-ATG-conditioned patients (otherwise similarly treated). Subset counts (in blood) and ATG levels (in serum) were quantified by flow cytometry. Mann-Whitney rank sum test was used to compare subset counts (1) in ATG-conditioned patients vs donors, (2) in ATG-conditioned patients vs non-ATG-conditioned patients, and (3) between subgroups of ATG-conditioned patients; Spearman rank correlation test was used to determine associations between subset counts and ordinal variables like ATG levels. Results: (1) After ATG-conditioned HCT, the counts of the following subsets normalized (became not significantly lower than in donors) by day 28: NK cells, monocytes, myeloid dendritic cells (MDCs), and plasmacytoid dendritic cells (PDCs). The counts of the following subsets normalized by day 84: memory/effector CD8 T cells, and CD4−CD8− T cells. The counts of naïve B cells normalized by day 180. The counts of the following subsets have not normalized by day 365 or 730: memory B cells (both isotype switched and unswitched), both naïve and memory/effector CD4 T cells, naïve CD8 T cells, CD4+CD8+ T cells, and invariant NKT (iNKT) cells. (2) Compared to non-ATG-conditioned HCT, counts of B cells, CD4 T cells and CD8 T cells were significantly lower after ATG-conditioned HCT on day 28. Thereafter, recovery of both naïve and memory B cells and memory/effector CD8 T cells was significantly faster in ATG-conditioned patients, leading to higher total B and higher total CD8 T cell counts on day 84 (Figure). On the contrary, recovery of naïve CD8 T cells and both naïve and memory/effector CD4 T cells was significantly slower, the latter leading to low total CD4 T cell counts throughout the first year (Figure). (3) Reconstitution after ATG-conditioned HCT was influenced by (a) the number of cells of the same subset transferred with the graft in case of increased memory B cells, naïve CD4 T cells, naïve CD8 T cells, iNKT cells and MDCs, (b) age of recipient in case of decreased naïve CD4 T cells and naïve CD8 T cells, (c) cytomegalovirus (CMV) serostatus of recipient in case of increased memory/effector T cells, (d) GVHD in case of increased naïve B cells, and (e) day 7 or 28 ATG levels in case of decreased T cell subsets. Conclusion: (1) Reconstitution after ATG conditioned HCT is very fast for NK cells, monocytes, MDCs and PDCs, fast for memory/effector CD8 T cells and CD4−CD8− T cells, slow for naïve B cells, and very slow for memory B cells, both naïve and memory/effector CD4 T cells, naïve CD8 T cells, CD4+CD8+ T cells and iNKT cells. (2) Compared to no ATG, the patients conditioned with ATG have lower counts of B and T cells on day 28. Thereafter, the ATG-conditioned patients have faster recovery of both naïve and memory B cells and memory/effector CD8 T cells, and slower recovery of both naïve and memory/effector CD4 T cells and naïve CD8 T cells. (3) Similar to what has been described for non-ATG-conditioned HCT, reconstitution after ATG-conditioned HCT is influenced by the number of the immune cells transferred with the graft, recipient age, recipient CMV serostatus and GVHD. Moreover, the reconstitution after ATG-conditioned HCT is influenced by ATG clearance. Disclosures: No relevant conflicts of interest to declare.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.016
GPT teacher head0.224
Teacher spread0.208 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations8
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207