Splenectomy before allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation for myelofibrosis: A French nationwide study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The value of pretransplant splenectomy in patients with myelofibrosis (MF) is subject to debate, since the procedure may preclude subsequent allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation (allo-HCT). To determine the impact of pretransplant splenectomy on the incidence of allo-HCT, we conducted a comprehensive retrospective study of all patients with MF for whom an unrelated donor search had been initiated via the French bone marrow transplantation registry (RFGM) between 1 January 2008 and 1 January 2017. Additional data were collected from the patients' medical files and a database held by the French-Language Society for Bone Marrow Transplantation and Cell Therapy (SFGM-TC). We used a multistate model with four states ("RFGM registration"; "splenectomy"; "death before allo-HCT", and "allo-HCT") to evaluate the association between splenectomy and the incidence of allo-HCT. The study included 530 patients from 57 centers. With a median follow-up time of 6 years, we observed 81 splenectomies, 99 deaths before allo-HCT (90 without splenectomy and nine after), and 333 allo-HCTs (268 without splenectomy and 65 after). In a bivariable analysis, the hazard ratio [95% confidence interval (CI)] for the association of splenectomy with allo-HCT was 7.2 [5.1-10.3] in the first 4 months and 1.18 [0.69-2.03] thereafter. The hazard ratio [95% CI] for death associated with splenectomy was 1.58 [0.79-3.14]. These reassuring results suggest that splenectomy does not preclude allo-HCT in patients with MF.
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 | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".