Survival outcomes of allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplants with EBV‐positive or EBV‐negative post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disorder, A CIBMTR study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Post‐transplant lymphoproliferative disorders (PTLD) are associated with significant morbidity and mortality following allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT). Although most PTLD is EBV‐positive (EBV pos ), EBV‐negative (EBV neg ) PTLD is reported, yet its incidence and clinical impact remain largely undefined. Furthermore, factors at the time of transplant impacting survival following PTLD are not well described. Methods Between 2002 and 2014, 432 cases of PTLD following alloHCT were reported to the Center for International Blood and Marrow Transplant Research (CIBMTR). After exclusions, 267 cases (EBV pos = 222, 83%; EBV neg = 45, 17%) were analyzed. Results Two hundred and eight patients (78%) received in vivo T‐cell depletion (TCD) with either anti‐thymocyte globulin (ATG) or alemtuzumab. Incidence of PTLD was highest using umbilical cord donors (UCB, 1.60%) and lowest using matched related donors (MRD, 0.40%). Clinical features and histology did not significantly differ among EBV pos or EBV neg PTLD cases except that absolute lymphocyte count recovery was slower, and CMV reactivation was later in EBV neg PTLD [EBV pos 32 (5‐95) days versus EBV neg 47 (10‐70) days, P = .016]. There was no impact on survival by EBV status in multivariable analysis [EBV neg RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.94‐2.15, P = .097]. Conclusions There is no difference in survival outcomes for patients with EBV pos or EBV neg PTLD occurring following alloHCT and 1‐year survival is poor. Features of conditioning and use of serotherapy remain important.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".