MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2911353246 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-117027

The Impact of Marital Status on Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplant (HCT) Recipient Outcomes: A Surrogate for Consistent Caregiver. a CIBMTR Registry Study

2018· article· en· W2911353246 on OpenAlexaff
Jason Tay, Ruta Brazauskas, Naya He, Sara Beattie, Christopher Bredeson, Jignesh Dalal, Shahrukh K. Hashmi, Theresa Hahn, Nandita Khera, William A. Wood, Wael Saber

Bibliographic record

VenueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicFamily Support in Illness
Canadian institutionsOttawa HospitalUniversity of Ottawa
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMarital statusMedicineTransplantationUnivariate analysisPopulationMultivariate analysisInternal medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationDemographyGerontology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Current literature suggests that the presence and quality of social support may provide meaningful benefits in overall survival of HCT recipients. Further, studies in general oncology and renal transplantation population suggest that married patients have favorable outcomes. Caregivers of HCT recipients are an important source of both instrumental and emotional support, and a reasonable surrogate for presence of social support. Using data from Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR), we examined the potential influence of marital status (surrogate for caregiver) at the time of HCT on outcomes of HCT. Methods Patients, >40 years of age who underwent either autologous or allogeneic-HCT from 2008 to 2015 were included. Marital status was defined as either 1) Married, 2) Single, never married, 3) Separated/divorced, and 4) Widowed. The probability of OS at 5 years, Grade 2-4 acute GVHD at 100 days and chronic GVHD at 2 years were estimated as appropriate using the Kaplan-Meier method with the log-rank test used for univariate comparisons. Multivariate analysis was performed to determine the association of marital status with these outcomes, while adjusting for clinical and sociodemographic variables. Results We identified 10,226 allogeneic and 5,714 autologous HCT patients; the median follow-up of survivors was 37 months (range 1-102 months) and 40 months (range 1-106 months) respectively. In the allogeneic population, there were n=7,999 married, n=741 single, n=1,175 separated/divorced and n=311 widowed patients. There were n=4,308, n=478, n=695 and n=233 respectively in the autologous population. The baseline characteristics amongst the 4 groups of marital status were comparable. In the allogeneic population, the 5-year probability of OS, 100-day Grade 2-4 acute GVHD, 2-year probability of chronic GVHD were 38% [95%CI (36-39%)], 16% [95%CI (15-17%)]and 46% [95%CI (45-47%)] respectively; while the 5-year probability of OS in the autologous population was 63% [95%CI (61-64%)]. When compared with married patients, single, separated/divorced and widowed patients were not at an increased risk of death [HR 1.09, 95%CI (0.98-1.2); HR 1.01, 95%CI (0.93-1.09); HR 1.09, 95%CI (0.98-1.2)] in the allogeneic setting. Similarly, there was no association of marital status and OS in the autologous setting [HR 1.10, 95%CI (0.92-1.33); HR 1.17, 95%CI (1.01-1.36); HR 1.08, 95%CI (0.86-1.37)] respectively. In contrast, marital status in the allogeneic setting was associated with an increased risk of grade 2-4 acute GVHD in patients who are divorced/separated as compared to married patients [HR 1.13, 95%CI (1.03-1.24)] but not chronic GVHD [HR 0.90, 95%CI (0.80-1.02); HR 0.94, 95%CI (0.86-1.04); HR 0.82, 95%CI (0.68-0.99)] respectively. We did not identify an interaction between marital status and gender. Conclusions Our data suggest the marital status in patients undergoing either autologous or allogeneic HCT is not associated with overall survival or chronic GVHD, while the risk of acute GVHD maybe increased in patients who are divorced/separated. Taken together, the effect of marital status on post-HCT outcomes is negligible when other patient, disease and transplant variables are considered. Alternatively, marital status maybe an imperfect marker for positive social support. Future research should consider measuring social support using validated scales and assess health related quality of life together with health care utilization outcomes to better appreciate the potential impact of social support. 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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.438
Threshold uncertainty score0.647

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.283 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designQualitative
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

Citations1
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBloodSame topicFamily Support in IllnessFrench-language works237,207