Curative therapies: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation from matched related donors using myeloablative, reduced intensity, and nonmyeloablative conditioning in sickle cell disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sickle cell disease (SCD) chronically damages multiple organs over the lifetime of affected individuals. Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT) is the most studied curative intervention. Fully matched related marrow, peripheral blood derived, or cord blood HCT have the best transplant outcome for symptomatic patients with SCD. For patients with asymptomatic or milder disease who have this donor option available, risks and benefits of HCT should be discussed among the patient, family, treating hematologist, and transplant physician, and decision to proceed to HCT should be individualized. Myeloablative conditioning with busulfan, cyclophosphamide, and ATG has been a commonly employed regimen for children and young adults. Recently, low intensity conditioning with low dose total body irradiation and alemtuzumab is emerging as an efficacious and safe regimen for adults, young adults, and possibly children. Mixed donor chimerism (minimum ≥20% myeloid cells), from myeloablative or nonmyeloablative conditioning regimen, produces robust normal donor erythropoiesis and is sufficient to provide a clinical cure. The proportion of patients remaining on immunosuppression beyond 2 years post-HCT is likely <10% with either myeloablative or low intensity regimens. Late effects from myeloablative or reduced intensity conditioning, or from several more months of immunosuppression in low intensity conditioning may be less common than those observed in HCT for malignant indications. Nonmyeloablative approaches with low toxicities should be the focus of future research efforts. Prevention of GVHD is a shared goal in all approaches of allo-HCT in SCD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".