Fresh <i>vs.</i> frozen allogeneic peripheral blood stem cell grafts: A successful timely option
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cryopreservation of grafts has been established in autologous and cord blood transplantation, yet there is little experience regarding the effect of cryopreservation with sibling and unrelated grafts. We evaluated the effect of cryopreservation of grafts on allogeneic transplant outcomes using related, unrelated and haploidentical donors, including 958 patients, age 18-74 years (median 55) and using PBSC for various hematologic malignancies. Fresh grafts were received by 648 (68%) patients, 310 (32%) received cryopreserved. There was no difference between fresh vs cryopreserved grafts for neutrophil engraftment (P = .09), platelet engraftment (P = .11), graft failure (5.6% vs 6.8%, P = .46) and grade II-IV acute graft-vs-host disease (GVHD) (P = .71), moderate/severe chronic GVHD was observed in 176 (27%) vs 123 (40%) patients, respectively (P < .001). Multivariable analysis demonstrated no difference between fresh vs cryopreserved for OS (P = .39) and CIR (P = .08) while fresh grafts demonstrated borderline increased NRM (HR 1.27, 95% CI 1.02-1.59, P = .04). Of note, for patients with no or mild chronic GVHD, CIR was less for fresh compared to cryopreserved (HR = 0.67 for fresh, 95% CI 0.48-0.92, P = .01). We conclude there were no differences in engraftment and survival between fresh and cryopreserved grafts for allogeneic HCT, thus establishing cryopreservation to be a safe option for allogeneic HCT.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".