MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3008202822 · doi:10.1016/j.bbmt.2020.02.011

Collection of Peripheral Blood Progenitor Cells in 1 Day Is Associated with Decreased Donor Toxicity Compared to 2 Days in Unrelated Donors

2020· article· en· W3008202822 on OpenAlexaff
Jack W. Hsu, Bronwen E. Shaw, Soyoung Kim, Brent R. Logan, Jennifer A. Sees, Dennis L. Confer, Michael A. Pulsipher, Nirali N. Shah, Galen E. Switzer, Muneer H. Abidi, Ibrahim Ahmed, Paulo N. Anderlini, Christopher Bredeson, Saurabh Chhabra, Christopher E. Dandoy, Miguel Ángel Díaz, Nosha Farhadfar, Siddhartha Ganguly, Usama Gergis, Gregory A. Hale, Peiman Hematti, Rammurti T. Kamble, Kimberly A. Kasow, Hillard M. Lazarus, Jane L. Liesveld, Hemant S. Murthy, Richard F. Olsson, Bipin N. Savani, Raquel M. Schears, Sachiko Seo, Melhern Solh, Thomas R. Spitzer, Amir Steinberg, Michele W. Sugrue, Phyllis Warkentin, John R. Wingard

Bibliographic record

VenueBiology of Blood and Marrow Transplantation · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsOttawa Hospital
FundersNational Cancer Institute
KeywordsMedicinePeripheral bloodProgenitor cellToxicityPeripheralPeripheral Blood Stem CellsProgenitorAndrologyPhysiologyPharmacologyInternal medicineStem cellTransplantationCell biologyHematopoietic stem cell transplantation

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Peripheral blood stem cells (PBSCs) have been increasingly used for allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation instead of bone marrow stem cells. Current National Marrow Donor Program policy recommends 5 days of daily filgrastim, followed by either 1 or 2 days of apheresis for unrelated donors, depending on collection center choice. To date, there are no published studies comparing the differences in donor experience between 1 day and 2 days of apheresis. We examined 22,348 adult unrelated donor collections in 184 centers between 2006 and 2016. Of these 22,348 donors, 20,004 (89.5%) had collection on 1 day, and the other 2344 (9.5%) had collection over 2 days. Information on why donors underwent apheresis in 1 day or 2 days was not available. Donors who underwent apheresis in 1 day were more likely to be male (67% versus 46%; P < .001), younger (age <30 years, 48% versus 36%; P < .001), and have a higher body weight (83.0 kg versus 75.9 kg; P < .001) and body mass index (BMI; >30, 30% versus 22%; P < .001). Successful collection of the requested CD34 + cell count was achieved on the first day in 82% of 1-day collections and in 16% of 2-day collections. Despite not administering filgrastim the evening after the first day of collection in patients who underwent 2 days of apheresis, the median concentration of CD34 + cells/L in the product was higher on the second day of apheresis compared with the first day (23.8 × 10 6 CD34 + /L on day 1 versus 28.7 × 10 6 CD34 + /L on day 2; P < .001). Donors who underwent collection in 1 day were less likely to experience citrate toxicity (36% versus 52%; P < .001), hospitalization (1% versus 6%; P < .001), and other side effects related to apheresis (Modified Toxicity Criteria incidence: 20% versus 26%; P < .001). Female sex, older age, collection via central lines, and higher BMI were factors associated with greater likelihood for the development of toxicity, whereas less toxicity was noted in those with higher CD34 + counts and more blood processed on the first day of collection. We conclude that although unrelated donors can be successfully collected in 1 day or 2 days, 1-day apheresis procedures were associated with less overall toxicity, and thus we recommend single-day collections, especially if the requested number of cells have been collected in 1 day.

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)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
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 score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.021

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.235
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Citations10
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBiology of Blood and Marrow TransplantationSame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207