MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3023834040 · doi:10.1007/s11764-020-00871-1

Body composition after allogeneic haematopoietic cell transplantation/total body irradiation in children and young people: a restricted systematic review

2020· review· en· W3023834040 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Ava Lorenc, Julian Hamilton‐Shield, Rachel Perry, Michaël C.G. Stevens, Stephen A. Wootton, Martin Feelisch, Lars Ove Dragsted, Marlou L. Dirks, Saeed Shoaie, Adil Mardinoğlu, Helen M. Roche

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cancer Survivorship · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of Life
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversity College DublinUniversity of BristolUniversity of SouthamptonUniversity of ExeterNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchUniversity Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation TrustWellcome TrustWellcome
KeywordsTotal body irradiationMedicineTransplantationHaematopoiesisPublic healthQuality of Life ResearchBone marrow transplantationHematopoietic cellHematopoietic stem cell transplantationImmunologyStem cellInternal medicinePathologyBiologyChemotherapyGenetics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

PURPOSE: To collate evidence of changes in body composition following treatment of leukaemia in children, teenagers and young adults (CTYA, 0-24 years) with allogeneic haematopoietic stem cell transplant and total body irradiation (HSCT+TBI). METHODS: Papers were identified by searching Medline and Google Scholar, reference lists/citations and contacting key authors, with no date or language restrictions. Inclusion criteria were as follows: leukaemia, HSCT+TBI, aged ≤ 24 years at HSCT and changes in body composition (total fat, central adiposity, adipose tissue function, muscle mass, muscle function). Quality was assessed using a brief Newcastle-Ottawa scale. RESULTS: Of 900 papers, 20 were included: seven controlled, five uncontrolled studies and eight case reports. Study quality appeared good. There was little evidence of differences in total fat/weight for HSCT + TBI groups (compared to healthy controls/population norms/short stature controls). There was some evidence of significantly higher central adiposity and differences in adipose tissue function (compared to leukaemic/non-leukaemic controls). Muscle mass was significantly lower (compared to healthy/obese controls). Muscle function results were inconclusive but suggested impairment. Case reports confirmed a lipodystrophic phenotype. CONCLUSIONS: Early remodelling of adipose tissue and loss of skeletal muscle are evident following HSCT + TBI for CTYA leukaemia, with extreme phenotype of overt lipodystrophy. There is some evidence for reduced muscle effectiveness. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Body composition changes in patients after HSCT + TBI are apparent by early adult life and link with the risk of excess cardiometabolic morbidity seen in adult survivors. Interventions to improve muscle and/or adipose function, perhaps utilizing nutritional manipulation and/or targeted activity, should be investigated.

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)0.020
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Systematic review · Consensus signal: Systematic review
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.022

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.020
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0080.005
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.018
GPT teacher head0.314
Teacher spread0.296 · 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 designSystematic review
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations18
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cancer SurvivorshipSame topicChildhood Cancer Survivors' Quality of LifeFrench-language works237,207