MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Transplant-Related Mortality in Patients ≥50 Years of Age Is No Lower after Transplantation from Young Fully Matched Unrelated Donors (MUD) Than from Matched Siblings When All Patients Are Given the FLUBUP Regimen with Thymoglobulin.

2006· article· en· W2565017341 on OpenAlexaff
James A. Russell, M. Ahsan Chaudhry, Diana Quinlan, A. Robert Turner, Loree Larratt, Michelle Geddes, Jan Storek, Mary Lynn Savoie, Christopher Brown, Nizar J. Bahlis, Douglas A. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments
Canadian institutionsFoothills Medical Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsThymoglobulinMedicineBusulfanFludarabineFolinic acidTransplantationSurgeryInternal medicineRegimenGastroenterologyPediatricsHematopoietic stem cell transplantationCyclophosphamideChemotherapyTacrolimusFluorouracil

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract There are reports indicating that older patients (pts) may have better outcomes after stem cell transplantation (SCT) from young fully matched unrelated donors (MUD) than from matched siblings (MRD) perhaps because of donor age. In some of these studies MUD and MRD recipients may have been treated differently, for example with more intense GVHD prophyaxis for MUD SCT such as antithymocyte globulin (ATG). We have compared outcomes of SCT pts receiving myeloablative fludarabine & busulfan based conditioning (FLUBUP) between 05/99 and 05/05. Only 10/10 (HLA–A, −B, C, DR & DQ) matched SCT were considered. Recipients of MRD SCT were ≥50 years old, MUD SCT recipients were unselected for age but their donors were ≤30 years old. All pts received fludarabine 50mg/m2 on days −6 to −2 and IV busulfan (Busulfex, PDL Pharma) at a myeloablative dose of 3.2 mg/kg once daily days −5 to −2 inclusive (FLUBUP) +/− TBI 200cGy x 2 on day −1 or 0. Prophylaxis for GVHD was cyclosporine A, methotrexate with folinic acid and Thymoglobulin (Genzyme) 4.5 mg/kg in divided doses over 3 consecutive days pretransplant finishing D0.[table 1]These data demonstrate that TRM for older SCT pts given the FLUBUP regimen with ATG is similar to that for adults in general transplanted from young MUD. When using these protocols in older pts there is usually no justification for the expense and inconvenience of using a young MUD in preference to a matched sibling. Patient, donor & SCT characteristics and outcomes Unrelated Related p * at 5 years Number 41 63 Patient age median (range) 44 (16–61) 55 (50–65) <0.0001 Donor age median (range) 24 (19–30) 52 (37–71) <0.0001 Low risk (Acute leukemia CR1/2, CML CP1) 22 (54%) 14 (22%) 0.0015 CMV+ve recipient or donor 31 (76%) 53 (84%) ns Female to male SCT 8 (20%) 18 (29%) ns Blood cells 20 (49%) 56 (89%) <0.0001 CD 34+ cell dose x 10e6 median (range) 5.35 (0.91–15.47) 4.23 (0.83–13.52) 0.08 TBI (not TRM risk factor) 19 (46%) 10 (16%) 0.0014 Acute GVHD II–IV 21±7% 16±5% ns Acute GVHD III–IV 10±5% 5±3% ns Chronic GVHD 64±7% 61±9% ns Pts≥50 TRM * 26±15% (n = 12) 16±5% ns Low risk TRM 5±5% 0% ns High risk TRM 31±12% 23±7% ns BCT TRM 10±7% 19±6% ns All pts TRM 16±6% 16±5% ns

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)0.001
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: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0020.000

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 head0.008
GPT teacher head0.214
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBlood→Same topicRenal Transplantation Outcomes and Treatments→French-language works237,207→