MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3082023690 · doi:10.1080/17474086.2020.1818065

Patient-reported symptom burden of chronic graft versus host disease: a systematic literature review

2020· review· en· W3082023690 on OpenAlexaff
Marcell Csanádi, Tamás Ágh, Szabolcs Farkas-Ráduly, Blanca Gros, Christoph Tapprich, Jeremiah Trudeau, Jeffrey H. Lipton, Jonas Mattsson

Bibliographic record

VenueExpert Review of Hematology · 2020
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation
Canadian institutionsPrincess Margaret Cancer CentreUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineQuality of life (healthcare)MEDLINEGraft-versus-host diseaseSystematic reviewIntensive care medicineHematopoietic stem cell transplantationGeneralizability theoryDiseaseRandomized controlled trialClinical trialTransplantationInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Chronic graft-versus-host disease (GVHD) is a life-threating complication of allogeneic hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) leading to high morbidity and quality of life issues. We conducted a systematic literature review on the patient reported symptom burden of chronic GVHD. AREAS COVERED: English-language articles published between 2005 and November 2018 were searched using CENTRAL, EMBASE and MEDLINE. Studies that used the 2005 or 2015 National Institute of Health consensus criteria for the diagnosis and staging of chronic GVHD were included. EXPERT OPINION: Patient reported symptom burden was widely assessed in the literature (n = 38). The Lee Chronic GVHD Symptom Scale was the most frequently used instrument (n = 28), followed by the NIH Patient-reported Symptom scores (n = 11). Association of symptom burden with clinical outcome assessment endpoints (e.g. mortality) and with quality of life measures was investigated by fairly low number of studies with limited generalizability. By systematically investigating the influencing factors of symptom burden this review helps to better understand patients' perceptions and may help improving the management and care of chronic GVHD. However, data on influencing factors was quite diverse, which indicates that specific questions identified as research gaps need to be incorporated in randomized clinical trials in a more systematic way.

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)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.029
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 score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.034

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.029
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0070.005
Bibliometrics0.0100.011
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.348
Teacher spread0.324 · 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

Citations6
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueExpert Review of HematologySame topicHematopoietic Stem Cell TransplantationFrench-language works237,207