MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Predictors of Blood Transfusion Requirements in Patients Undergoing Autologous Stem Cell Transplantation for Multiple Myeloma.

2006· article· en· W2586319235 on OpenAlexaff
Jacob Pendergrast, Khalil Al Farsi, Mohammed Al-Huneini, Maya R Maliakkal, Gregory R. Pond, Christine Chen

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineMultiple myelomaTransplantationPlatelet transfusionAutologous stem-cell transplantationBlood transfusionPopulationUnivariate analysisHematopoietic stem cell transplantationSurgeryInternal medicineMultivariate analysisPlatelet

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract INTRODUCTION: The majority of patients with multiple myeloma undergoing autologous stem cell transplant require transfusion support during the engraftment period. A retrospective study was conducted to identify factors predicting need for blood transfusion in this population: METHODS: Charts were reviewed for all patients undergoing their first autologous stem cell transplantation for multiple myeloma (MM) at the Princess Margaret Hospital (PMH) from July 1, 1999 to Oct 31, 2002. In order to ensure all transfusion needs were tracked, patients who did not receive all follow-up care at PMH were excluded from analysis. Use of blood products during the 90-day period following stem cell infusion (Day 0–90) was determined by review of the hospital blood bank laboratory information system. An RBC transfusion was defined as a single unit, and a platelet transfusion as either one apheresis unit or 3–5 pooled whole-blood derived units. The following factors were evaluated as predictors for receipt of an RBC and/or platelet transfusion: patient age and sex, myeloma subtype (IgG vs. other) and stage (Salmon-Durie I/II vs. III); presence of hematologic comorbidity (active blood loss and being on therapeutic anticoagulation) in the post-transplant period; previous treatment with alkylating agent(s) >1 month and > 4 months; pre-transplant pelvic or lumbar radiation therapy; hemoglobin at transplant admission (Day -2), white blood cell count, platelet count, and creatinine; number of CD34 cells infused. Results were analyzed by both univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Over the 40-month period of review, 280 transplants for MM were performed with 128 cases identified with complete transfusion and follow-up data available. The overall transfusion rate in the post-transplant period was 54.0 % for RBCs, 67.6% for platelets. By univariate analysis, significant predictors for RBC transfusion were female sex (OR 2.03, p =0.046), previous treatment with alkylating agent(s) >1 month (OR 3.29, p =0.013) or > 4 months (OR 4.83, p =0.018) and decreased admission hemoglobin (OR 0.90, p<0.001). In the multivariate model, admission hemoglobin and > 4 months alkylator treatment remained as independent predictors. If hemoglobin was dichotomized as ≥110 vs. <110 g/L, this variable remained the only significant multivariate predictor of RBC transfusion (p < 0.001). In the univariate model, no predictors for platelet transfusion were identified. CONCLUSIONS: Hemoglobin at time of transplant and prior alkylator therapy were predictive of transfusion needs in myeloma patients post-transplant. Although prolonged alkylator exposure can slow engraftment by damaging stem cells for autologous collection, we were not able to consistently identify total stem cell collection volume as an independent predictor for transfusion. Further data collection is planned with aims to develop approaches to blood product conservation in this transplant population.

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)0.004
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.017
GPT teacher head0.254
Teacher spread0.237 · 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 topicMultiple Myeloma Research and Treatments→French-language works237,207→