Association of Autologous Hematopoietic Stem Cell Transplantation in Systemic Sclerosis With Marked Improvement in Health‐Related Quality of Life
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To quantify the magnitude, domains, and duration of change in health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in patients with systemic sclerosis (SSc) who underwent autologous hematopoietic stem cell transplantation (HSCT) as compared to SSc patients with similar characteristics who did not undergo autologous HSCT. METHODS: The study was designed as a retrospective study comparing SSc patients who underwent autologous HSCT and SSc patients who met the criteria for transplantation but were treated with conventional care. Outcomes included scores on the 36-item Short Form (SF-36) health survey and the Health Assessment Questionnaire (HAQ) and its disease-specific symptom scales. Differences in scores between the groups were compared using linear models, adjusting for baseline scores and inverse probability of treatment and censoring weights. RESULTS: In total, 41 SSc patients who underwent autologous HSCT and 65 SSc patients treated with conventional care were compared. In marginal linear weighted models, the SF-36 physical component summary score was a mean ± SEM 7.02 ± 1.94 points higher at the first annual visit (P = 0.001) and 14.40 ± 6.16 points higher at the seventh annual visit (P = 0.03) in patients treated with autologous HSCT compared to the conventional care group. HAQ scores were significantly better in the autologous HSCT group compared to the conventional care group during follow-up (mean ± SEM difference from baseline -0.57 ± 0.13 [P < 0.001] at the first annual visit and -0.94 ± 0.49 [P = 0.07] at the seventh annual visit). There were no differences in the SF-36 mental component summary scores between the 2 groups either at baseline or during follow-up. CONCLUSION: This study provides robust complementary HRQoL data, including overall and event-free survival data, to expand on the standard repertoire of biomedical variables, thus potentially supporting the physical benefits of autologous HSCT in patients with SSc.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".